Slashdot Log In
Total Information Awareness, Disguised And Alive
Posted by
timothy
on Sun Feb 22, 2004 08:47 PM
from the state-of-the-state dept.
from the state-of-the-state dept.
unassimilatible writes "According to the AP, aspects of the controversial Total Information Awareness DARPA program, officially shut down by the U.S. Congress in September 2003 after a public outcry, seem to have survived. The article reports, 'Some projects from retired Adm. John Poindexter's Total Information Awareness effort were transferred to U.S. intelligence offices, congressional, federal and research officials told The Associated Press. In addition, Congress left undisturbed a separate but similar $64 million research program run by a little-known office called the Advanced Research and Development Activity, or ARDA, that has used some of the same researchers as Poindexter's program.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Total Information Awareness, Disguised And Alive
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 439 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Common practice (Score:5, Insightful)
Wack a mole... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it fails here, they'll wack it. Sure.
It will pop up there, and if uproar continues, they'll wack it there.
It will pop up over there, under security this time, and if it leaks and there's more uproar, they'll wack it again. With "feeling".
But, once told "no", only criminals will find another way. And the Feds have so very many options.
They'll move it into "private research" inside Lockheed.
Or, they'll bust it up into dozens of subject matter and time compartmentalized graduate projects in their Universities.
Or, or, or...
Seems real terrorists just won't allow themselves to be stopped.
Similar (Score:4, Interesting)
Getting across the wall (Score:5, Interesting)
I lived in West Berlin for over a year oh so long ago. I used to make kindof a study of the wall. Even brought back a piece of it, long before it came down and was sold in pieces in the US like pet rocks. (taking the piece home made kindof a funny story. I was taken off the subway by plainclothes policemen who thought I was going to use it to vandalize something. I switched to English and told them I was an American tourist who was bringing home a souvenir, so they let me go, rock and all)
From what I remember, there was "the wall" - that part that is famous in pictures, with the graffiti and all. Incidently, it was covered/topped with what looked like a continuous cylinder maybe 2 or 3 feet in diameter along the top. I imagine that would have been very hard to get past without special equipment. Behind the wall was the no man's land with a small access road for patrols and the antitank ditch in it. Behind that was a somewhat shorter inner wall as well.
Of course, "the wall" was different in different places. In some places it was partly made up of buildings. Additionally, the western subway went under parts of East Berlin. You could sometimes see guards in the stations in the Eastern part.
It was an interesting study in security. As the wall changed in form due to the changing geography, infrastructure, and so forth, you could see how one who wanted out would attempt to choose the weakest link. One guy built a flat car and drove under the checkpoint gates. Another tightrope walked over the wall (IIRC). And so forth.
Re:Getting across the wall (Score:5, Interesting)
I was at Brandenburger Tor late a Sunday night. I didn't realise it was closed. I sat in the empty bleachers and a West Berlin cop hailed me. 'You'd better get out of there', he said. 'Why?' I asked.
'Look up at that guard tower on the east side', he said. 'See that guard there? See what he's doing? He's got his gun trained on you.'
'Hold on, I'm coming back with you!' I yelped, and jumped down the bleachers and walked off with the West Berlin cop.
Re:Similar (Score:5, Interesting)
Friday? (Score:5, Funny)
Offtopic rant (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://jostein.kjonigsen.net/)
Sorry for this offtopic rant, but statements like these really piss me off:
Jeez. Do you know how ignorant that paragraph makes you seem? You need the basic rights like due process and a fair trial to actually establish for a fact that these people are "combatant terrorists".
They may be, but there is no fscking way of knowing, unless they are given the rights, which has been explicitly been taken away from them. How complicated is that to understand?!?
Ofcourse, G. W. Bush haven't understood this at all [unol.org], but this should be no surprise. I quote: "the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people". How does he know?
But let's be consistent in our reasoning at least. Since murder is also a sever crime, I suggest we remove all security that the law provides for fair trials, if the poeple are accused for murder. After all they are murderers and don't deserve any legal protection, now do they?
Last I checked, some of these "combatant terrorists" held which were release after only 18 months, was found to be a taxi-driver and his ride [amnesty.org]. I think you should consider the possibility that the people giving out "terrorists", has aproximately the same credability as those informing the US about Iraqi WMD.
Get real (Score:5, Interesting)
It is in fact not at all like what the East German secret police (Stasi) did during the cold war. There was no legislative shell game to play because the legislature was a sham. The scope of individual liberty was so small that there was no comparable initiative from Stasi. There was no need to sift through large amounts of data about citizens to find out what they needed to know. Activities were all duly registered, and all records were available to them. Elaborate systems of informants kept tabs on any person of interest.
It's hard to believe that anyone old enough to remember the cold war would say something so ridiculous. American domestic intelligence activities take place in a society where individuals enjoy broad latitude of action outside of state control. Without that context, total information awareness or whatever it has become would not even be a dream in a spies mind.
Re:Get real (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. I challenge you to name one area of our lives that is entirely outside of government control. I can't think of any.
Re:Get real (Score:4, Funny)
Also, the government limits your right to blow your nose on the sleeves of the following government representatives: The president, the Secretary of State, officers of the law, military servicemen of ranks above E-6 or O-3, senators from states with more than ten million citizens, visiting foreign dignitaries, and Condoleeza Rice.
Finally, depending on what you do with the tissue after your nose is blown, the government can hold you on charges ranging from littering to arson to attempting to assassinate a Supreme Court justice.
dissenting view on TIA (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday January 20 2004, @02:13PM)
The irony is that this tool would be much more useful and effective if they knew which way to point it. Rather than blanketing every bit of data everywhere, why not send in spies, get a vague idea who may be involved and then focus on that group rather than wasting resources everywhere. Go from 6 billion targets to 1 million or so and your odds go way up. It may be old fashioned, but that method got us through the Cold War and I don't understand why it can't work for the 'War on Terror'(which is a misnomer but I won't get into that). We need decent human intelligence. Without decent human intelligence all of these fancy computers will be next to useless, which is our current predicament. Information is useless without knowledge.
And as for the people who are getting all freaked out by the government, especially on this geeky forum, it is the powermongers/wannabe dictators that should be afraid of us. Whenever I imagine a worst case scenario, where fascists take over, I imagine what I would do to fight back. Theoretically, I know how to shut the whole system down: communications, telephone, internet, power, transportation et cetera. Knowledge is power. But I believe that most of the people who run the national security apparatus are patriots who believe in liberty. I find it difficult to believe they would stoop to dictatorship. But if they do go too far, I'm not afraid of them, and they had better fear me. If anyone truly believs our liberty is being undermined, it is their duty to stand up and fight...anyone???
Damn (Score:4, Funny)
From the ARDA Page (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday February 15 2007, @08:00PM)
High Risk as in 'Public Backlash'?
Re:From the ARDA Page (Score:5, Informative)
DARPA is only concerned with research. Not production or use.
On the couple of DARPA programs I worked on it goes like this.
1.) DARPA gets a crazy idea (like "I wonder if we can make an anti-gravity device".)
2.) DARPA puts together about 6 to 10 teams of researchers (from industry and academia) and gives them some money to study the problem.
3.) 6 months or so later the teams present their ideas to DARPA. DARPA then decides if it wants to stop the research or continue.
4.) If DARPA continues. It will pick the best 2 or 3 approaches and give those teams more money for more details on their approach.
5.) 6 months or so later the teams present their approaches to DARPA. If DARPA really likes an idea, it might have one of the teams build a small prototype.
If the prototype works out DARPA will ask congress to take the research to production (not under DARPA but under DOD).
Very, very rarely does a DARPA project make it to production.
Re:From the ARDA Page (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.mindspring.com/~bstretch)
High Risk as in it's not likely they'll be able to make it work, but it'll be Really Cool (in their opinion) if they can.
Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
am I not even remotely surprised by this announcement ?
Could anyone actually trust a government that passed the PATRIOT Act to actually can TIA ?
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gh-sts.com/HOWTO | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01 2005, @09:39PM)
You should not be surprised - this is behavior that should be expected from any government no matter what benevolent face it puts on.
The only things that keep power hungry government officials in check is fear of retribution from the populace. When the country was small and the military little more than a couple boy scouts with prettier boots (a situation that persisted well into the 20th century to some degree), there was the potential for armed revolts. Even pockets could cause huge problems.
When the official forces were bulked up as a result of the world wars, there was still the ever hanging axe of the ballot box to keep politicians under control. When the media gained the power of radio and TV, any little foible could be broadcast within hours to a population that might actually care.
Now, armed revolt isn't a threat, the media is broadcasting sensationalist bullshit for ratings meaning people don't take it that seriously, and the typical voter turnout is so horribly anemic that I have a hard time believing people even realize that they have a vote sometimes.
Politicians are free to pursue whatever agenda they want now. Nobody is going to stop them. With a few exceptions like TIA, nobody speaks up against ridiculous, authoritarian programs coming out of D.C. anymore. When they do, you just see this - they get broken up and hidden in various budgets and departments in such a way that they look like harmless little pocket programs, but the same folks are still pulling the strings at the top.
I've got to wonder sometimes how much farther this can go. The technology will just keep evolving in favor of loss of privacy and big brother-esque data collection and monitoring. When will people step up to draw the line and, depending on how long it takes, what will it take to actually keep the government from crossing it?
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gh-sts.com/HOWTO | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01 2005, @09:39PM)
The politicians are closely linked to commercial interests.
Commercial interests have a great deal to gain from knowing everything about everyone.
Both the politicians and the agencies are closely linked to the private sector. The agencies, as you stated, have a great deal to gain from knowing everything about everyone.
None of these three can exist in their current incarnation without the crucial link of the politician. Would you like a pencil to connect the dots? This is not just some paranoid goon bullshit either, it's the most likely series of connections in the event that anyone really is "out to get us". Whether anyone is actually out to get us, or this is simply massive incompetence, pork-barrel spending, or a vulgar display of power by some sniveling twit with a shriveled cock sitting in Congress somewhere is up for debate.
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We alread have some recent historical precedent you can draw from. What it took last time was:
- A lengthy, ugly, pointless, war in Vietnam that killed and maimed large numbers of American soldiers and millions of Vietnamese. Vietnam for the U.S. and Afghanistan for the U.S.S.R. created large numbers of returning veterans who were disillusioned with their government after being subjected to the senseless horrors they were producing in the name of their geopolitical and economic manuevering.
- A CIA that had essentially run amuck and was using covert operations, coups, assasinations and rigged elections to install despotic regimes around the world
- An FBI engaged in a massive domestic spying and social engineering campaign
- A President, Richard Nixon, who was caught using dirty tricks to destroy political oponents and insure his reelection.
- Economic upheaval thanks in part to the massive expenditures in Vietnam
America did manage to come back from the brink then for a time thanks to:
- The antiwar movement. We forget this now but a lot of people were politically very active in the late sixties and early seventies.
- Congressional investigations by the Church Commission which reined in the CIA and FBI for a time.
- Investigate journalists, Woodward and Berstein, who refused to accept the mush being spoon fed them by the government and actually did what journalists are supposed to do which was find the truth.
Today many of the same elements are coalescing though it took time for them to develop in the 60's and it wont happen overnight this time either:
- the war in Iraq has the same potential as Vietnam to incite an anti war movement unless the U.S. is successful in disengaging its occupation army and fostering a stable government soon. Both are unlikely. If the U.S. were to disengage its army Iraq would likely devolve in to a civil war. Any real attempt to actually turn sovereignty over to the the Iraqs, with a democratic vote, would lead almost immediately to a Shia dominated Islamic republic which the U.S. won't tolerate. As a result the U.S. has to manipulate the politics in Iraq and maintain an occupation army, indefinitely, or cut and run and let it collapse like South Vietnam eventually did. If things continue as they are the root of an antiwar movement will form each time a new wave of 100,000 soldiers return from Iraq with the permenent scars of the horrors they are subjected to there. Occupations with a creditable insurgent resistance are always very ugly for everyone involved. This disillusionment would be an instantaneous process though. It will take years as it did in Vietnam. There are some forces that work against another Vietnam too. The Army learned a lot of lessons about what caused the moral collapse of the Army and public opinion in Vietnam and they have remedied some but not all. The three obvious ones are:
- drug testing to prevent drug abuse
- maintaining unit cohesion
- suppressing media coverage of the ugly side of the war, in particular wounded soldiers screaming in pain and the unloading of the coffins in Delaware(the later insituted by non other than Dick Cheney when he was Secretary of Defense). The media today obsesses endless over the sensational murder/kidnapping of the day, but the nearly daily causalties in Iraq pass by with little more than "2 soldiers were killed today by an IED".
- As for reining in the intelligence establishment with a new Church commission, there is one force working towards that and one against. The force working for it is growing public awareness of the blatant and obvious deception used to justify Iraq which should be grounds to once again rein in the CIA and to launch impeachment proceeding against the President. The force working against it is the Republicans control the government. As long as they do the deceipt will be
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
US CON says otherwise (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6th:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Re:US CON says otherwise (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 14, @10:49PM)
---------------------
July 1, 2002
Citizen Padilla: Dangerous Precedents
by Robert A. Levy
Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
Jose Padilla, a.k.a. Abdullah al-Muhajir, supposedly plotted to build and detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." He is a U.S. citizen. Yet he's being detained by the military -- indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. Yaser Esam Hamdi is also a U.S. citizen. He, too, is being detained by the military -- indefinitely, without seeing an attorney, even though he hasn't been charged with any crime. Meanwhile, Zacarias Moussaoui, purportedly the 20th hijacker, is not a U.S. citizen. Neither is Richard Reid, the alleged shoe bomber. Both have attorneys. Both have been charged before federal civilian courts.
What gives? Four men: two citizens and two non-citizens. Is it possible that constitutional rights -- like habeas corpus, which requires the government to justify continued detentions, and the Sixth Amendment, which assures a speedy and public jury trial with assistance of counsel -- can be denied to citizens yet extended to non-citizens? That's what the Bush administration would have us believe. Citizen Padilla's treatment is perfectly legitimate, insists Attorney General John Ashcroft, because Padilla is an "enemy combatant" and there is "clear Supreme Court precedent" to handle those persons differently, even if they are citizens.
Ashcroft's so-called clear precedent is a 1942 Supreme Court case, Ex Parte Quirin, which dealt with Nazi saboteurs, at least one of whom was a U.S. citizen. "Enemy combatants," said the Court, are either lawful -- for example, the regular army of a belligerent country -- or unlawful -- for example, terrorists. When lawful combatants are captured, they are POWs. As POWs, they cannot be tried (except for war crimes), they must be repatriated after hostilities are over, and they only have to provide their name, rank, and serial number if interrogated. Clearly, that's not what the Justice Department has in mind for Padilla.
Unlawful combatants are different. When unlawful combatants are captured, they can be tried by a military tribunal. That's what happened to the Nazi saboteurs in Quirin. But Padilla has not been charged much less tried. Indeed, the president's executive order of November 2001 excludes U.S. citizens from the purview of military tribunals. If the president were to modify his order, the Quirin decision might provide legal authority for the military to try Padilla. But the decision provides no legal authority for detaining a citizen without an attorney solely for purposes of aggressive interrogation.
Moreover, the Constitution does not distinguish between the protections extended to ordinary citizens on one hand and unlawful-combatant citizens on the other. Nor does the Constitution distinguish between the crimes covered by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and the terrorist acts Padilla is suspected of planning. Still, the Quirin Court justified those distinctions -- noting that Congress had formally declared war and thereby invoked articles of war that expressly authorized the trial of unlawful combatants by military tribunal. Today, the situation is very different. We've had virtually no input from Congress: no declaration of war, no authorization of tribunals, and no suspension of habeas corpus.
Yet those functions are explicitly assigned to Congress by Article I of the Constitution. It is Congress, not the executive branch, which has the power "To declare War" and "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court." Only Congress can suspend the "Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
Re:US CON says otherwise (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.joe-bunting.com/club)
I think that if you can't declare war on it then it's probably not a good idea to fight a war with it either.
Re:Why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.ferion.net/ | Last Journal: Monday May 06 2002, @02:16AM)
Bad example.
a.) The operative word here is 'one'.
b.) It's being fought, as opposed to it just happening without any checks and balances in place.
c.) Shit happens.
I'm not arguing that it's right or that it's harmless. Rather, I just want a more substantial reason to be afraid. I'm not a "whoah I better join the crowd" kind of person, I'm a "give me the info so I can judge" kind of person. So please, help me out so I can understand.
(P.s. Modding the guy down for asking "What harm has it caused" is ridiculous. Not everybody (including myself) stays on top of every little thing that happens. Questions like that are never harmful.)
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Sunday April 16 2006, @10:03PM)
Bad example.
a.) The operative word here is 'one'.
Well, you know, it always starts with one.
One Bolshevik, one kulak, one "Enemy of the People", one Jew, one Japanese-American, one Communist, one educated person, one literate person, one Arab.
(Roughly in chronological order; I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to connect each "Enemy" to the society that demonized them. Feel free to add other examples.)
That one is supposed to be our warning that it's time once again to fertilize the tree of liberty.
Because if we don't, suddenly it's not "just one" anymore; it's a thousand, a hundred thousand, six million, 20 million. And then everybody exclaims in surprise, "how could this happen in a civilized nation?!"
Re:Why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.sabacctable.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday June 22 2004, @02:10PM)
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
True, so why give them more power to do stupid things with?? This specific event may not have anything to do with the patriot act, but it shows that people can and will abuse their power. That in of itself is the main reason why the US was founded on giving away as little power as possible.
The real question is: (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://trypticon.org/)
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Blanket search warrents.
Re:Why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.penny-arc...s/2002/20020722h.gif)
Blanket search warrents.
Nationwide roving wiretaps.
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I could ask about your address, bank account, relatives, or hint at hidden cameras in bathrooms and bedrooms and such. But, I'll just say this. If you have nothing to worry about, feel free to post your main email address or phone number on here.
Oh, wait: from your slashdot page
"tealover (187148)
tealover
* (email not shown publicly)"
Got something to hide do we?
And sorry, just because someone works for the government doesn't make automatically give them integrity. As for laws, you mean those things that stop regular people from exploiting such information as well?
Re:Why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://ymgve.net/)
I am not afraid of the government abusing that information. A big difference.
The government is made of people.
Re:Why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.weddingtime.org/gallery2/main.php)
Exactly right, you do have something to hide, and most people here would fully understand your reasons for hiding it.
Now what happens if a few years down the road a new Law passes saying that it is illegal to post anonymously to the internet, and that all users must be registered and traceable.
Are you the type who would just say, "Ah well, posting to the internet is a privilege not a right," and accept it? Will you go underground and post in places where you can be anonymous and thus be (technically) a criminal?
Seriously, just because you are known here as tealover, you are still essentially anonymous and you probably prefer it that way, and yet, you do not feel that you are entitled to that privacy? Enlighten me as I cannot understand that.
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This just keeps happening (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://longc.at/ | Last Journal: Sunday February 22 2004, @09:46PM)
Why do we keep electing these people who keep misrepresenting us to represent us?
Re:This just keeps happening (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you can only elect from those people on the list that is essentially chosen for you. And you don't get much of a say in who goes on that list.
Those with Power (those who own and/or control this country's largest corporations) choose who get on that list and "sell" it to you via their mass media outlets.
And the end result is that the only people you can realistically choose from are people who will not represent you, but who will represent Those with Power. It's why the "democracy" part of the "democratic republic" title for the U.S. is a lie.
Re:This just keeps happening (Score:5, Interesting)
Now how do Those with Power "sell" to the public? By voicing the standard fare benefit programs that lead to better healthcare, better education, defense, lowered taxes, creation of new jobs, consumer protections, etc.
After your post, I can't help but view these things as being dangling fishing lures baited with carrots.
Re:This just keeps happening (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, what were you saying? I was distracted by my enjoyment of this fine carrot.
-The average voter
Re:This just keeps happening (Score:5, Insightful)
And you don't get much of a say in who goes on that list.
Sure you can choose. In MN your chance in March 2nd, also called super tuesday where people in 10 different states all at once get a chance go choose who goes on the ballot.
Of course you have to belong to a political party in order to have a choice, but if you don't want to belong to a party why would the party want you to have a say in who they put on the ballot. Get your own party, or just go out and get on the ballot yourself. (If you can't get enough signatures to get on the ballot in an afternoon in a local city you aren't trying)
The greatest tradgity is that people have been convinced that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. Don't fall for it.
Re:This just keeps happening (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.penny-arc...s/2002/20020722h.gif)
You know what I find odd though, is that when there is a choice (like, say, the Green Party), people complain about it and claim they're taking votes from an electable party. It's sad that America is completely dominated by two parties, both very similar (race to the middle, anyone?), and any apparent deviation from that is met with great hostility ("Nader cost us the election!"). It would be nice to be able to vote for something, instead of a reflex vote against what you don't want. I see people as voting for Nader because they believe in his policies, rather than because they don't want Bush to get elected.
But who knows? The voter turnout for 18- to 24-year-olds in the 2000 election was 9 percent. Nobody cares anyway.
Nothing stopping it now. (Score:5, Interesting)