Feds Open 'Total' Tech Spy System 276
Diesel Dave writes "A Wired article reports: 'On Wednesday, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) will begin awarding contracts for the design and implementation of a Total Information Awareness (TIA) system...The Total Information Awareness program, with its ability to provide persistent storage of everything from credit card, to employment, to medical, to ISP records, is a recipe for civil liberties disaster unless there are provisions for citizens to find out who is looking at their records and to see and correct those records.' The foundation for the omnipotent National ID database has now been laid."
When will these people learn? (Score:3, Funny)
Just think about it, do you really want those horny 16 yearolds at the checkout stand to know who you are while you're picking up the tampons for your wife?
Be a man (Score:2)
Just give them a tired smile and express your profound relief over having a couple of days off from your exhausting studly duties.
Why do you care what a couple of pimply faced kids think, anyway?
Of course! (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
I thought the same thing (Score:1)
Slashdot (Score:1, Funny)
To me, that is Slashdot! I read it 20-50 times a day...
Hmmm (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd say the future employee is probably figuring out what to spend his/her new revenue stream on, from the moment their contract is signed.
First "Sacrifice Liberty" & 1984 Post (Score:1)
Oh, KARMA PLEASE.
NSA Authority (Score:1, Funny)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " -Ben Franklin
Re:NSA Authority (Score:2, Funny)
-John Ashcroft
Re:NSA Authority (Score:5, Interesting)
one other interesting fact, the NSA is exempted from any US law that does not specifically name the NSA....
Everyone should read Body of Secrets before claiming to know something about the NSA.
Re:NSA Authority (Score:2, Informative)
So DARPA is taking a page from Google's book... (Score:3, Funny)
There are comanies that already do this. (Score:1)
Re:There are comanies that already do this. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's another thing entirely for it to be not merely difficult but downright illegal to avoid them.
Most "Total Solution" projects fail (Score:3, Insightful)
As a professor of mine in college once said; "Computers make great filing cabinets, but lousy guessers."
Re:Most "Total Solution" projects fail (Score:2)
Re:Most "Total Solution" projects fail (Score:2)
Google never forgets.
Re:Most "Total Solution" projects fail (Score:2)
Indeed such a system could have made the attacks easier to carry out. The problem was not having too little information. It was having two few people to interpret the information. Combined with some combination of the FAA, NORAD and the USAF failing to follow their procedures.
Can't see how this kind of system would have stopped whatever idiot it was in WTC 2 telling people everything was ok and they could return to their desks whilst WTC 1 burned.
Like that movie... (Score:2)
Open source is the answer (Score:5, Funny)
Then we just 'do a mozilla' and keep adding wonderful new features but never actually deliver the damn thing
problem solved!
Since When is Open Source always the answer (Score:1)
sweet you want EVERYONE to have this? So lets say DARPA asks for a project to create a neutron bomb that fits in a beer (as in free) cup. Lets do it because we knoe we can do it right? Soem things are better off not done, Open source is not the answer, the real answer is just to say "No". Its like the D.A.R.E. program here in the U.S.A (drugs prevention program with kids). Just say no to allowing yourself to be turned into a celebrity. "Celebrity" you say? why yes. The only people who have such scrutiny are celebrity and polititians. And since I plan on having no fame (and realitively little money) why must I have to be put through the same scrutiny that they signed up for. The problem is that our polititains are used to no privicy and there for do not expect it. They don't see whats wrong with this stuff.
Spell Checked using CmdTaco's own personal Dictionary
What about (Score:2)
Homeless (Score:2)
-- Terry
Inevitable? (Score:2)
Many times we raise a red flag because of privacy issues, and I agree that the direction we (as a world) are progressing in is sad at times. However, let's put this in perspective for a moment. Regardless of your beliefs in a higher power or lower power, one thing is sure...does it really matter that the government knows what you are up to? Yes we live free lives and I know my concern is that perhaps, in the future I will want to do something underhanded and this system will prevent it...what fun would life be without the challenges? Our lives span only a minute on this world, live in your situation and make life a joy: you're the only one who can do that. You can make a case for any possibility, but does the existence of this database can't interfere with that!
By the way, do any of you really expect that the government will be able to implement this without people like us helping them? If you have a hand in it, you can control it
it's coming... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember folks, the only reason we don't live in an Orwellian nightmare world is actually because it isn't technologically feasible.
As soon as it's possible and practical, in the next few years, it will happen on a wide and broad scale. If it's unpopular, they'll simply not publicize its use. If a few innocents are harrased by it (activists, anarchists, pagans, atheists, and other similar unAmericans), you won't hear a word. If by some sheer coincidence it actually assists in finding a terrorist pre-crime, they still won't say a word.
And I'm sure they'll find a few other uses for it. I mean if you're commiting a crime, it's a crime, no matter what, so what's the problem?
(Hmm, Citizen #95235345 just bought a DVD-R unit and downloaded a copy of DeCSS. Set his Awareness Level to 15%, and send a copy of his Dossier to Media Control for further study. Excellent, we might yet meet our Enforcement quota this week!)
Re:it's coming... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh my GOD! The fed's are going to start awarding karma!
Re:it's coming... (Score:2)
Re:it's coming... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:it's coming... (Score:2)
Actually, just take out "technologically." Replace it with "politically", "economically", or "sociologically" as you see fit.
The people in power are *not* interested in taking away your rights. They never have been. They're interested in protecting your own. The best defense against "an Orwellian nightmare", is to simply show the people in power that you are NOT a threat to their rights.
On the other hand, if you think that all mankind is vile and despicable and not to be trusted, then we should live in "an orwellian nightmare", and stop deluing ourselves that things like free trade, democracy, or "civil rights" will be anything but threats our out basic nature. I don't think that we are, but you might disagree with me.
Hmm, Citizen #95235345 just bought a DVD-R unit and downloaded a copy of DeCSS. Set his Awareness Level to 15%, and send a copy of his Dossier to Media Control for further study. Excellent, we might yet meet our Enforcement quota this week!
Two nitpicks:
1:) If the government was going to track everyone by number (they'd probably use names instead, for morale reasons of the officers) they'd use Social Security Numbers. XXX-XX-XXXX.
2:) Quotas, where they exist, only exist to match the statistics of crimes with the statistics of lawbreakers. If there are an average of 10 thefts a day in a city, the city probably WANTS to see an average of 10 arrests for theft a day, and can require 3-5. If there's continuous tracking of all citizens, this won't be a problem.
The nightmarish prosects of a system like this are imperfection and abuse. If the system were to work perfectly and sufficient checks were in place to make the operators of the system above reproach, this could work and be a utopia, not a nightmare.
Common Wisdom may say that all Utopias fail, but common wisdom said the same thing about democracies three hundred yeras ago.
Re:it's coming... (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction: The people in power are interested only in protecting their own welfare. They are seldom interested in their electorate, except insofar as that interest coincides with their own self-interest. Politicians simply don't deliberately do things that cause harm to their own welfare.
Re:it's coming... (Score:2)
Three hundred years may be a short time for democracy, but I've only got another 70 years at best, and I do not plan on wasting any of that short time living under fascism.
Re:it's coming... (Score:2)
Taxes, the census (where we go out and actually count every human being in the country--the reason the first IBM "mechanical computers" were invented) and statistics, where we guess and test our guesses in a guesswork framework. (I'm not a big fan of the third kind of lie.)
There's also birth records, death records, and immigration / emmigration records, along with the requisite SSN.
Hey, that's right--we here in the USA *DO* have a unique number, the social security number. xxx-xx-xxxx, assigned geographically based on where you live when you get it. (I got mine when I was born in Michigan, so mine starts with a 3 like my parent's, unlike my wife's who was born in NY, so hers stars with a 0 like almost everyone else around here.)
Anyway, the SSN is used to track your social security payments to withdrawls--though I don't quite know what the correlation is. I also know that it's not *supposed* to be used for any other purpose but taxes, but it is.
We also have DMV numbers, which are unique when referenced within each state (though I don't know what metadata is included therein), and of course credit card numbers.
And on top of all that, when a court refers to a US citizen, they (AFAIK) list his common name and a descriptive geological reference. So I'd be "Doug Meerschaert of Albany, NY", which is pretty damn unique. (Do a search for "Doug Meerschaert" on google, and just about all of the references are me.)
Re:it's coming... (Score:2)
There is also the problem of being able to interpret the information gathered. What makes the US government think they can manage any better than the German Democratic Republic?
Re:Hey Asshole.. (Score:4, Informative)
Read George H.W. Bush's thoughts [cyberdespot.com]; that's probably what the grandparent post was referring to.
Re:Hey Asshole.. (Score:3)
Defensive, aren't you? Too defensive to note that the poster was attempting irony by subtly summoning the bogeyman of a right-wing Big Brother. Being an atheist surely is not unamerican, but neither is being religious, and in particular neither is being Christian. If you (and the poster you are replying to) had a more comprehensive picture of court rulings over the past 30 years, you would see that Christians have more to fear from undemocratic abuses of power than atheists or subscribers to other religions.
More people have DIED over religious wars than any political war..
From this comment alone, I'll peg you as a 19-21 year old, hot-headed undergrad who took two history classes, both taught by professors who advocate socialism, and you think you're being intellectual by stating that old canard with that kind of CAPITALIZED fervor, like you calculated it up yourself. In this you are hardly unique. You'll grow out of it.
Oh, and far more people have thrived in the propsperity of Western, Judeo-Christian societies than in any autocratically mandated atheist society.
Re:Hey Asshole.. (Score:2)
- Government funds for religion? No thanks. The "religious wars" the previous poster was talking about (which he attempted to contrast with "political wars") came about because governments used the religions they sponsored and therefore controlled, as political tools. I'll take my religion "unestablished by congress," thank you.
- A moment of silence in the morning at school, while not something I lobby for or care much about, is so thoroughly unobjectionable that one has to wonder about people who call it an establishment violation.
- The Ten Commandments are such a vital part of the history of this world (whether you like it or not) that I find it amazing that I learned more in public school about the Code of Hammurabi, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the I Ching, and the Rig Veda than the Ten Commandments. This is also an indication of the hypocrisy of the "secularists," who are usually thinly veiled "anti-Christians," since things like Buddhism and Shamanism are usually A-OK in their world.
At least the atheists want all religion OUT, instead of wanting theirs IN.Would "wanting all religion OUT" mean not teaching about all those horrible "religious wars," or would the discussion be limited to "why religion is bad for children and other living things?" The very stance of non-religion is unavoidably confused with anti-religion, and all too often anti-Christian in particular, since Chrisitianity is seen as the "dominant paradigm" most worthy of subversion. And if you think that anyone religious who complains about the current state of things is asking to have "theirs IN," then you don't understand either religious people or the current state of things, or both.
The problem I was refering to when I said that Christians have more to fear about undemocratic abuses than atheists, comes from "fundamentalist secularists" who "want all religion OUT," which on its face is a limitation of the free exercise of religion. Wanting religion "unfunded" is fine, but wanting religious topics unexamined or entirely absent (i.e., OUT) from the public forum, is unwarranted secular extremism. Look, in the recent "pledge of allegiance" case, the plaintiff lied about his relationship with and representation of his daughter, just to get his judgment. Even if you agree with his claim, you have to recognize that he represents a tyrannical minority that is often getting its way. Many lawyers, and some judges, are pushing the point of view that students can't even speak or write about their religion in public school, even while they are given class assignments regarding other world religions, or that employees can't wear e.g., cross jewelry in the workplace, and so on. Yes I stand by the claim that Christians have more to fear about losing liberties than atheists do at this point in history.
Re:Hey Asshole.. (Score:2)
In the case of atheists, that's the same thing.
Your Historical Myopia Is Showing (Score:3)
However, if you take the time to include the tens of millions butchered by prominent atheist Josef Stalin, and the tens of millions butchered by prominent atheist Mao, it turns out that atheists are responsible for so much more wholesale slaughter in the world's history that it's not even worth comparing to anything or anyone else.
Re:Your Historical Myopia Is Showing (Score:4, Informative)
> Atheism has no more substantial foundataion for ethics than simple personal preference.
This is, of course, nonsense, as it assumes that the only possible source for moral or ethical
values is the belief in a deity or deities.
Re:Your Historical Myopia Is Showing (Score:2)
There's nothing nonsensical about it at all, and it has nothing to do with theism. Atheism cannot support ethics that are more substantial than personal preference because of its cosmology. The atheist says that he is ultimately the product of completely impersonal forces. It is the height of absurdity to pretend that impersonal forces have anything to say about right and wrong.
Atheism demands that we are nothing more than a bag of chemicals with some interesting electrical and biochemical reactions going on. But if this is so, it is even more preposterous to pretend that atheism provides ethical categories! Chemical reactions don't make statements about ethics. If human cognition is no more than chemical reactions - as the atheist claims - then humans can no more make ethical distinctions than can boiling water or a crackling campfire. The personal is destroyed; there is no person to make decisions about right and wrong. Bubbling, sparking chemicals are all that remain.
Thus the whole attempt by atheists to make ethical claims (or, really, any other claim, since *all* human cognition is no cognition at all in their system) is based upon theft. They must engage in theft of some ethical categories from somewhere else, because their own system cannot support it.
And all this being true, we should not be surprised when a Stalin or a Mao commits atrocities in the name of atheism: atheism itself cannot provide ethical categories to induce them to behave well.
Re:Your Historical Myopia Is Showing (Score:2)
Two related points. First, you may have missed an earlier post of mine in this same thread, in which I assert the fact that philosophy and religion are merely two sides of the same coin: they both seek to answer the same sorts of questions. The atheistic philosopher attempts to answer them without reference to supernatural forces; the theist tries to answer them in a framework that *does* include the possibility (or certainty) of supernatural beings at work in the world. Though the answers each side gives are often quite different, the questions are essentially the same. Thus it is a puerile dodge on the part of the atheist to claim that he doesn't have "religious beliefs". He has beliefs that occupy the exact same position in his life that religious beliefs have for the theist. He has beliefs that, for him, possess the exact same power and authority as anything the theist believes. To deny this rather obvious fact would be absurdly naive.
Secondly, the atheistic philosophy is hardly so childishly simplistic as you suggest. The atheist must ask (and answer) the question: "Where do I come from?" The answer to that - since he denies the existence of a god or gods - can only be that he is the product of impersonal forces: he has denied the possibility of personal forces (a god or gods) already, so what else is left but IMpersonal ones?
Hence my statement - to which you objected - stands.
Re:Your Historical Myopia Is Showing (Score:2)
Philosophy is a science, it is the search for answers.
It's debateable whether philosophy is a "science" or not: certainly it's not in any sense a science like, for instance, astronomy or genetics. But you are correct that it is a search for answers: but answers to what questions? The answer to that question is that the philosopher seeks answers to the same questions as the theologian. It is the same exact enterprise; in the case of the atheistic philosopher, the answers are assumed to come from someplace other than a god or gods, while for the theist those answers quite likely *do* come from a god or gods. Nevertheless, it's the same questions. The fact that you don't like the answers provided by whatever religions to which you have been exposed doesn't change the fundamental truth that the questions answered by theism are the same questions for which the atheistic philosopher seeks answers.
Lastly, I find it interesting that you describe rocks and keyboards as atheists, because ultimately atheism reduces man to nothing more than an impersonal thing, like a rock or keyboard! Because atheism is materialist (in the philosophic and not economic sense here), you and I are nothing but big bags of chemical reactions. We're more complex than boiling water or a campfire, but we're not fundamentally different, from the atheistic perspective: we're just bags of chemicals. And chemicals - or chemical reactions - don't seek answers. They don't give answers, either. They just sit there, like your rock or keyboard. That's what atheism does to us: it destroys the possibility of knowing anything, because bags of chemicals can't "know" anything. They're impersonal. And atheism reduces humans down to the impersonal.
No, it can't (Score:2)
Having looked briefly at it, however, I don't believe that IPD is a sufficient response to what I have been arguing.
What I have been saying is that atheism cannot make truth claims or claims about ethics. It cannot do so because of what it claims about the nature of man. Essentially a man is a glorified electro-chemical machine, according to atheism: based, that is, upon atheism's ideas about human origins.
But if this is true, then it is no more possible for a man to say "it's good to help the little old lady across the street" than for a pot of boiling water to do so. Boiling water doesn't make ethical claims: to even suggest otherwise is absurd. But if man really is nothing more than a glorified batch of incredibly complex chemical/thermal/electrical reactions/interactions, then it is equally absurd to pretend that man can say any more at all about helping old ladies than that pot of water.
If I asked you to inquire of a hurricane whether it is ethical to destroy property and human lives, you would probably laugh in my face. But the atheist, who says that man is - similar to that hurricane - nothing but a batch of chemicals mixed up in intriguing and highly reactive ways, nevertheless expects me to listen to him when he starts chattering about what's "right" or "wrong". I'm sorry, but I fail to see why I shouldn't laugh in his face, IPD notwithstanding.
IPD depends first of all upon the interaction of rational agents - but atheism simply demolishes rationality because of what it says that man is.
This is why I say that atheism reduces ethics to personal preference: because a bag of chemicals doesn't "do" anything. It doesn't think. It doesn't evaluate. It doesn't judge. It's impersonal. Thus, whatever it does is just that, and nothing more. What it does is what it does. The atheist, as a bag of chemicals, can't condemn what atheist bag of chemicals Stalin or Mao does, because bags of chemicals don't have an ethical sense.
Hint: the fact that man really does have an ethical sense ought to be a sufficient clue to you that atheism is a load of nonsense.
Re:Communism IS a religion (Score:2)
Simple answer (Score:2)
Sorry to break it to ya, but this has recently been proven an incontrovertible fact. By far the majority seems to agree that the USA is "one nation under God" - or if they don't agree, they're too scared to say so. Therefore, if you're an atheist, you can't be part of the nation, so you're un-American.
BTW, I'm an atheist, and not an American, but I live in the USA. I was rather disappointed to see the selfish "my religion wins because there are more of us than you" attitude that prevailed in the recent "debate". Tolerance and equality is well and good as long as it doesn't interfere with the national superstition.
P.S. the original post was making the atheist=unamerican claim ironically, as others have pointed out.
Re:Simple answer (Score:2)
This raises an interesting constitutional question: does Pres. Bush have the constitutional authority to issue an order to have himself bombed???
heart warming indeed (Score:2, Insightful)
really fuzzy.
Big Brother Is Already Here (Score:2)
Moral: you already lost. If you have a social security number or driver license number or anything that allows the government to identify or control you, you are already living in a Big Brother society. Either you go along with it or you do something about it. Whichever you choose, you loose.
Sorry, but you are all like cattle, tagged with a number. You are not as free as you have been led to believe. No amount of prideful boasts about living in the freest country in the world will change that fact. You are a bunch of deluded slaves working for a central controlling government. And you are paying a lot more in taxes than you can imagine. It's sad.
Re:Big Brother Is Already Here (Score:2)
You see, this is where open source needs to pick up, it needs to be more and more accessible by the technically less-than-literate. Only if the response to technological oppression is as dispersed and available as the oppression itself will it be useful as a tool to combat this "orwellian nightmare".
I'm constantly thinking this - how to keep (too much) power concentrated in the hands of the elite, either Our elite or Theirs. That is, presuming, that anyone wants to be saved, that they consider it a nightmare - this I'm not so sure of
Re:Big Brother Is Already Here (Score:2)
In Tennessee, the state requires NO other form of identification to get a drivers license. Since this was enacted by the governor, lines at drivers license stations AVERAGE 4 hours. English is not the most widely used language in these lines, either.
I mean, if I read that right, you just need a SSN to get a license, right? But then I read the actual Requirements [state.tn.us] and you need to have a birth certificate, and even more complicated, proof of residency. The SSN section goes:
Tennessee has a computer link with the Social Security Administration, so most
applicants will not have to present proof of the Social Security number. The computer
will simply return a message indicating the number matches (or it doesn't). However,
in case the computer link is down, and to make sure the examiner accurately records the
number, you should bring one of the documents listed below. These documents may also
serve as a second piece of identification, which you will need any way, so it makes
sense to bring them along when you can.
which sounds like what you said, but that's just for proof of... SSN.
Maybe I'm misreading something?
Re:Big Brother Is Already Here (Score:2)
NY has a more restrictive system... you need six points to make up proper ID, and even a valid US passport doesn't count for all six.
Details. [nysdmv.com]
Well, lord knows I'd enjoy having a Tennessee drivers license. I'll tell you what. I'll send you 50 bucks, and rent out some space under your couch. And I'll pay your phone bill for a month or two. Fax in a signed affidavid in the name of Harry J. Satan, and I'm in!
*shudder*
Re:OT: David's Census (Score:2)
Is that why God killed 70,00 people? To punish David's pride? Wow! Nice God! The truth is that taking a census is forbidden in the Torah for the reasons I have stated. It's fascist and it allows the goverment to control people's daily lives.
The goverment keeps tab on its people for a simple reason: it does not trust them to pay their taxes and it knows that the people does not trust it either. Government without trust is bound to fail in the end. This includes democratic governments. Heck, the very tenet of democracy is that we cannot trust anybody. Hence checks and balances, etc...
To deal with your other statements -- just because I have a SSN and a credit card doesn't mean the government can track all my purchases.
That is not the point of government control. The point of government control is to make sure its taxes are paid.
Re:OT: David's Census (Score:2)
That's the ideal but, in practice, the government does not care about justice. If it did, there would be no private lawyers. Everybody would be provided with effective and equal legal aid, regardless of their financial or social status.
These are paid for by taxes, sure, but if what you said is true, then a government is as ethically sound as the self-perpetuating disease.
It's a disease alright. And no cure in sight that I can see.
Re:OT: David's Census (Score:2)
I agree that David did not rely on God but I don't buy that God killed 70,000 people just because David did not rely on him? David already had an army. He wanted to increase it by fascist means because he did not trust the people to join the army ranks. He was, so to speak, a control freak. The people, too, were a bunch of jerks because they knew what David was up to and did nothing to oppose it. They wanted to control those who did not volunteer to fight so as to force them to enlist. God was mad at the people because they were a bunch of jerks who were willing to forgo their liberty for selfish reasons.
As far as the Book of Numbers is concerned, it was not Moses who ordered the counting but God who commanded him to do it. There is a difference. It was a way not only to build the army (sword-carrying men were to be counted) but to divide the people into distinct families of each tribe and to prepare them to inherit the promised land: a plot of land for each family. It was not done for fascist control reasons. Land ownership is freedom. Remember, they were landless slaves in Egypt.
Data Protection Act (Score:2)
Here in the UK we have the Data Protection Act, which all companies must adhere to if they store information about you on their computer systems. Amongst other requirements, it allows you (for a small fee) to obtain a copy of that information on request, and have it modified if it's not accurate. If this does go through, I would hope that the US provides something similar.
Not just UK (Score:2)
All EU countries have a similar act.
Here's a bit of a suggestion/challenge for all the EU /.ers. Call up your local council and find out who the Data Protection Contact Officer is and their address. Then send them a letter stating that you want to make a Data Subject Access Request. A lot of councils will do this for free but some charge a tenner. They then have 40 days from the postmark of your letter (send it first class else they migh try to get an extension) to send you a copy of all information that they hold on you in both electronic and paper systems (used to be just electronic but paper got added in 1998).
You will probably be very suprised by the sheer volume, if you're not then they're probably holding something back as councils hold a lot of data on their citizens.
Stephen
The link at the end of the story ... (Score:1)
I was expecting a well thought out reasoning why we should be avoiding enumeration, but instead what I saw was trife about how we're all going to hell if we have a numbering system.
oh dear, please, if someones going to post arguements against something, atleast base them in reality, rather then the rantings of a 2000 year old book.
how unfortunate.
nothing to hide (Score:3, Insightful)
There are government agencies, especially law enforcement, whose existence is threatened by this person. They have full access to the complete records of this persons life: medical problems, personal purchases, friends, lovers (including unmarried ones), etc. To silence this person, they will have the ability to make any embarrassing information public (none of which may even have been illegal). Even if the person has the strength of character to withstand this, the persons message will be lost under the media coverage of the scandalous aspects of this person's life: his pr0n preferences, former friends who turned out to be bad guys, extramarital affairs, etc.
This type of this has serious implications for free speech. Even if you are a nobody who will never have anything important to say and who has nothing to hide anyway, there are people to have something to say and have the right to keep the private aspects of their lives private while saying it.
Re:nothing to hide (Score:2)
See Frank Capra's Meet John Doe [imdb.com] for a slightly hokey (it's a Frank Capra movie), yet chilling vision of what people with enough money and power can do to anyone in public view. All that's old is new again - robber barons, private police, and media manipulation of the masses...
Re:nothing to hide (Score:2)
I'm saddened by the suggestion that what's important is to live in a way that is accepted by other people. I'd prefer to live in a way that *I* believe to be "right", irrespective of what others might think (although, of course, I can't help but be influenced by the society I live in).
Re:nothing to hide (Score:2)
I find the notion of an objective "right or wrong" to be rather quaint, but by your own criteria neither Christianity nor religion in general have proven to be very "good".
I apologise if I implied that I think gratuitous self-satisfaction is a particularly worthy way of life (insomuch as any such way of life can be worthy). For my part, I try to deal with other creatures - all other creatures - in the way in which I would hope to be treated myself: since I enjoy life, I don't take life from others. Since I like to be fed, I believe others should be fed. That kind of hippy drivel.
Re:nothing to hide (Score:2)
I find the notion of an objective "right or wrong" to be rather quaint, but by your own criteria neither Christianity nor religion in general have proven to be very "good".
Quaint? I find it a hell of a lot more logical and modern than a subjective view of the ideas.
It's right to share scientiifc knowledge. It's right to protect the rights of people. It's wrong to murder.
And yes, I know I can't say that the Church (of any religion) has proven to be very good at doing what it's supposed to. But the theory of relativity wasn't discarded just because Einstein failed math...
I apologise if I implied that I think gratuitous self-satisfaction is a particularly worthy way of life (insomuch as any such way of life can be worthy).
Why can't a way of life be worthy? Even if there is no God, no afterlife, and no way off this mudball for our species, at least we can make it a better place in the short term by worthy actions.
For my part, I try to deal with other creatures - all other creatures - in the way in which I would hope to be treated myself: since I enjoy life, I don't take life from others. Since I like to be fed, I believe others should be fed. That kind of hippy drivel.
Let's not get into the application of morality to human-animal relationships, shall we? (I prefer a simpsons quote: "If that cow had the chance, he'd eat you too." Which is right; if the cow could digest me, he wouldn't think twice about eating me.)
Re:nothing to hide (Score:2)
According to whom? The answer: according to nothing but current social standards. In a society where incest is the social norm, incest is considered "right". The definition of "murder" varies according to who's writing the definition. Hell, the very idea of "rights of people" is inherently subjective. Which rights? Who gave you those rights? As an entity unto myself, don't I have the right to take the life of another human? No? Then why should I have the right to speak to another human?
Why can't a way of life be worthy? Even if there is no God, no afterlife, and no way off this mudball for our species, at least we can make it a better place in the short term by worthy actions.
My point was that notions of worth are dependent upon subjective values. It's considered "worthy" to protect other humans because we can readily understand that those humans are similar to ourselves, and because we wish to be protected ourselves. It's less commonly considered "unworthy" to kill animals because that link is less obvious, and because they 'taste good'. But what evidence is there to suggest that either is "more worthy" than any other? There are two options: either there's a higher power who determines "worth", in which case He has clearly been much understood across the centuries, or there is only opinion, dogma and tradition.
Let's not get into the application of morality to human-animal relationships, shall we? (I prefer a simpsons quote: "If that cow had the chance, he'd eat you too." Which is right; if the cow could digest me, he wouldn't think twice about eating me.)
Even if that is true, it is likely that the cow would be doing it thanks to an inability to better consider his actions. Your refusal to apply humanitarian concerns to animals is because you're socially programmed to believe that humans are 'better' than 'other animals' - an rather non-scientific attitude. Actually, I would argue that if we *are* 'better' than animals then it's precisely because we can make the decision *not* to eat meat.
You can't have it both ways: either we're morally aware creatures who should make moral decisions, or we're just animals and there's no morality.
(To address the seeming inconsistency in my own beliefs: as I said before, I don't believe that there's any absolute morality, but I do understand that I have certain traits -- my own "morality" -- and that I am happiest when acting in a way consistent with those inherent feelings.
Re:nothing to hide (Score:2)
Name one. Subdivisions of existing cultures don't count--find a society somewhere that considers incest "normal" that isn't just a self-absorbed backlash against traditional society.
The definition of "murder" varies according to who's writing the definition.
But they all include killing someone. The room to argue is if there are times when killing someone isn't murder, not if there are times when it is.
My point was that notions of worth are dependent upon subjective values. It's considered "worthy" to protect other humans because we can readily understand that those humans are similar to ourselves, and because we wish to be protected ourselves. It's less commonly considered "unworthy" to kill animals because that link is less obvious, and because they 'taste good'. But what evidence is there to suggest that either is "more worthy" than any other? There are two options: either there's a higher power who determines "worth", in which case He has clearly been much understood across the centuries, or there is only opinion, dogma and tradition.
I do not base my desire to eat animals on my religion. I have a much more basic drive than that: I am a human being, and humans are designed to get sustinence from meat. Animal fat tastes good to us. Animal meat allows us to act more effectively in an active environment (war or survival living) than almost any other natural foodstuff.
People meat, on the other hand, leads to the elimination of people, which is generally a Bad Thing. I also understand that we taste rather well when prepared properly, which leads to all sorts of things that are (instinctually?) revolting to us. [If not instict, then an obvious social detractment, considering every dominant civlization throughout history has banned or borderlined the act.]
Even if that is true, it is likely that the cow would be doing it thanks to an inability to better consider his actions. Your refusal to apply humanitarian concerns to animals is because you're socially programmed to believe that humans are 'better' than 'other animals' - an rather non-scientific attitude. Actually, I would argue that if we *are* 'better' than animals then it's precisely because we can make the decision *not* to eat meat.
It's not "animals vs. humans." I wouldn't eat my cats, nor my father-in-law's dog, nor a friend's horse. Each of these creatures provides a real benefit to me as a person and as a member of a human social unit. Other people provide *more* of a benefit to me, so they're even lower on the totem pole of "things to eat when it's eat or die time." (I have never been in that situation, so I don't know how I would react.)
As for the animals that I eat--cows, deer, fish, chickens, and pigs--none of them provide any benefit to me, whatsoever, except as a foodstuff / part of an ecosystem. (That's redundant, because, in the wild, all of the food animals get eaten as well.)
Science says nothing about morality. Only in the rather young and nebulous fields of sociology and pscyhology is the concept of people eating people even an item of debate. You can't use "doesn't eat meat" as a way to judge a creature "better." You might as well use "doesn't have sex" or "doesn't eat at all" to rank them--it makes about as much scientific sense.
You can't have it both ways: either we're morally aware creatures who should make moral decisions, or we're just animals and there's no morality.
Sure we can--we do have it that way, in fact. And we will have it that way until science and religion sort out their mutual disagreements. (Which will take either the invention of a working practical time machine, or the direct intervention of God.)
We are moral creatures. But the very concept of "morality" is worthless if you don't use an objective measurement for "good" and "bad" morals. I find "because X says so" or "because it's been done that way" or even "because it's popular" to be worthless judges of what is good and what is bad; hence, I had to devise some way to measure them objectively.
I am a human. I dislike eating my own species for a whole bunch of very practical reasons.
Re:nothing to hide (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but I feel that your argument continues to be based upon instinct and conditioning rather than reason. Any cursory examination of the taboo of incest would reveal that its condemnation -- indeed, its very definition -- is applied differently across a number of cultures. Whilst it is true that incest of some form is generally prohibited in most major societies, the particular form varies to a great extent. And there are societies where incest has been either accepted or encouraged -- you should not let your revulsion for the idea lead you to blanket all such cases as "self-absorbed backlash against traditional society" -- that's a dangerous game, and is played by those who view *any* particular divergence from their accepted moral stance.
But they all include killing someone. The room to argue is if there are times when killing someone isn't murder, not if there are times when it is.
I don't understand your point. Capital punishment is commonly accepted in the United States -- a seemingly paradoxical notion given the avowed "Christian" stance of most of its leaders. I suppose you're suggesting that "murder is wrong, but killing people for socially acceptable reasons is okay"? You're on difficult ground.
I do not base my desire to eat animals on my religion. I have a much more basic drive than that: I am a human being, and humans are designed to get sustinence from meat. Animal fat tastes
You're able to live without meat. I doubt that you're commonly involved in war or faced with problems of survival. Another basic human instinct, since you seem to be alluding to those, is for procreation - and yet I dare say that it's not acceptable, by your moral code, to rape somebody. Why is that? The principle, after all, is the same.
It's not "animals vs. humans." I wouldn't eat my cats, nor my father-in-law's dog, nor a friend's horse. Each of these creatures provides
Oh, nonsense. The French and Italians eat horse regularly, for example. The true reason you wouldn't eat your cat or dog or horse has far less to do with any "tangible benefit" that they might confer than with social conditioning. You consider a cat to be "a pet", rather than a foodstuff. You consider the neatly packaged goods you buy at the grocery store to be "food", and so you eat those. It's mere abstraction, really - it's more convenient to think about animal foods in a different way than animal "companions".
And no, you haven't been at "eat or die time" (and, indeed, a balanced vegetarian diet is arguably healthier than a carnivorous one), so your arguments go rather out of the window; indeed, the growing number of vegetarians in the world reinforces the view that the "right" of eating meat is a sociological construct that, as its importance diminishes, becomes less valid in modern society.
As for the animals that I eat--cows, deer, fish, chickens, and pigs--none of them provide any benefit to me, whatsoever, except as a foodstuff / part of an ecosystem. (That's redundant, because, in the wild, all of the food animals get eaten as well.)
Fine - you're supporting my argument, though, that this comes down to draconian and, to use your earlier language, "hedonistic" living, rather than to inherent "good" or "evil". Ah, but you're a Christian - man is, of course, "better" than the animals, and science goes out of the window.
Science says nothing about morality. Only in the rather young and nebulous fields of sociology and pscyhology is the concept of people eating people even an item of debate. You can't use "doesn't eat meat" as a way to judge a creature "better." You might as well use "doesn't have sex" or "doesn't eat at all" to rank them--it makes about as much scientific sense.
I agree with you, but I believe I covered this in earlier postings -- as humans, we can only form our own individual moral standpoints. Nature doesn't care if we wipe the entire planet out but, as someone with eyes to view it and some kind of mechanism for feeling some kind of joy at that, I consider it important to keep the whole thing ticking over. I don't think there's inherent value in these things; what value there is is what we've come to make for ourselves.
ure we can--we do have it that way, in fact. And we will have it that way until science and religion sort out their mutual disagreements. (Which will take either the invention of a working practical time machine, or the direct intervention of God.)
My point is that whilst people seek to have it both ways, to do so involves a logical fallacy. I'm not personally content with glaring inconsistencies in my view of the world, and try to address them wherever possible (which is why I stopped eating meat, when I realised the irony of looking after cats etc. whilst devouring other animals).
We are moral creatures. But the very concept of "morality" is worthless if you don't use an objective measurement for "good" and "bad" morals
Your argument begs the question. You can't assert that "we are moral creatures" and then go on to say that "we need an objective measurement", because there *is* no objective measurement. Even if you subscribe to the notion that the Word of God is law, and provides us with such a measurement, that word is subject to interpretation and abuse. Now, it may be that you consider that law, clouded and obscure and contradictory as it is, to be a true standard. I can only ask that you consider the alternatives.
It might be time to take this to personal email, if you feel so inclined - and if you don't mind dealing with me at my email address, which is "kafka" AT "antichri" DOT "st"..
BAA 02-08 (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.darpa.mil/iao/BAA02-08.pdf
This BAA describes exactly what RESEARCH DARPA is looking to fund (emphasis on research: DARPA is NOT a procurement agency, and DARPA is NOT an operational agency). They are not buying off-the-shelf systems, and they are not setting up systems to spy on people. There is even a component to this BAA regarding privacy-protecting technologies.
It is worth noting that many of the problems for which this BAA is looking for national-security-style solutions are problems common to many organizations, as well as fundamental computer-science questions. Not the malevolent stuff that Wired and others would have you think.
Re:BAA 02-08 (Score:2)
Re:BAA 02-08 (Score:2)
The process happens over several iterations and is really quite serious. It is rather shocking to see the extent to which politics, basic research, and personal idiosyncrasies come together at that level.
Re:BAA 02-08 (Score:2)
And in effect, that is what DARPA does, for the rather specialized market of defense R&D. Many argue that the free markets should provide this kind of service, but then we wouldn't have the Internet, Stealth Aircraft, or UAVs.
Re:BAA 02-08 (Score:2)
When parts of the technology made the transition -- to the Internet, to MILNet, whatever, commercial enterprises/subcontractors took over. DARPA had nothing to do with it at that point.
National IDs (Score:2)
The interesting thing about the military's new IDs is that they're only laminated on one side, which is causing some to wear out. The military's temporary solution is to hand out plastic sleeves in which to store the cards. If a national ID card ever becomes a reality, I would hope they learn from this and remember to laminate both sides. :o)
DARPA? (Score:2)
Maybe its just me...
This is straight from the book of revalations (Score:3)
I was just listening to NPR yesterday and they had a story about a so called communist who was arrested just for being a communist. Basically their is something called the smith act which gives the government the right to arrest anyone if they are involved in a plot to somehow dis assembly the government. Since he was a communist he therefor was against the government and had to be arrested for his dangerous political views.
Anyway this survelance would be perfect for the FBI to arrest anyone suspected of being against the government. IF you are angry at Aschcroft for example and post to
I am sick of 1984 similarities in all these posts but dam.
Anyway this whole database thing looks alot like totalitarian economics mentioned in the bible that is interpreted by conservatives Christians as when the end of the world or when the anti Christ appears. In that day and age the one world government or the beast made of 12 hears or nations( cough, cough, EU) is when everything will be tracked. Infact you will not be able to buy food or land without approval of the government or the corporations of the time. In the book you need a particular mark to do these things. This could be just facial recognition so the government and big corp to know who you are and what you are doing. Just think of the power of big corps or the government will have. IF you do not agree to an EULA then you starve and die or have no home. Everything will be monitored so if you hate the government or the man of lawlessness their will be no outlet to share your views. Infact the end times described a world filled with greed and the love of money. My guess is we are all heading there right now. Only time will tell when are comments from slashdot are monitored and the FBI starts monitoring our lives because of something we said agaisnt the dmca or big W.
Junius Scales (Score:2)
Hey Billly, thanks for pointing this out.
illustro
Re:This is straight from the book of revalations (Score:2)
B) Who says the mark isn't a 666-byte field? <g>
the answer (Score:2)
Funny (Score:2, Interesting)
Speaking of outsourcing, this kind of a plan gives ample opportunity for politicians, bureaucrats and police to outsource wrongdoing. Like we are now outsourcing torture to friendly Arab nations and outsourcing covert operations to Israeli and British intelligence. Mostly, they will outsource the abuses to off-shore dummy corporations funded through US intelligence, but domestic corporations that collect large amounts of data on US residents (note that it is now considered legit for phone companies to track and disclose everyone you dial unless you succeed in opting out, and no one knows what goes on inside lots of commercial software -- why does the MS Excel viewer make my internet connection so busy?)will likely get involved as well.
Not again... We're on the slippery slope (Score:3, Insightful)
Tracked information about all its citizens
Required you to carry federal identifiation whenever you left the house
Required "papers" for any sort of travel outside of your home town
And yet here in 2002, we as a nation seem to be jumping for joy that all these things are being talked about and implimented in our country. Yea, it's all supposedly for national defense, but Hitler started his reign by imposing all those rules and ideas for the good of the country. How far will we take it this time?
Why can't the Fed just look at the easy way out: stop imposing our will on other countries by military force. Just get out of the Middle East and let them fight it out amongst themselves. Problem solved.
Re:Not again... We're on the slippery slope (Score:2)
Edsger W. Dijkstra's view on computing science ... (Score:2, Insightful)
"...society tolerates the computing profession because of its incompetance. It is our incopetence that makes us, though expensive, relatively harmless: were we as competent as we would like to be, we would offer the perfect implementation of the complete police state. We would be the darling of any dictatorship"
Food for thought.
Re:Edsger W. Dijkstra's view on computing science (Score:2)
Hassle them with encryption (Score:2)
Hey, then we can block telemarketers and spammers because we won't have their key. Don't forget, you have to physically hand a key to someone in order for it to be truely secure, else you are trusting whoever you hand it to. This only needs to be done for personal calls/email. It isn't very likely that someone will use a business call against you.
False Identities, New Identities (Score:2, Interesting)
In the past it was possible to create an entirely new life. Criminals, debtors, or just people who wanted to start a new life could move to "The New World" or other countries and begin again. Now, your new home already has a pretty good idea who you are.
Until the age of direct deposit, it was possible to move somewhere new and get a job that you could be paid for the same day, paying cash for a room in some seedy hotel until you could get a better place. Now, it takes 2-3 weeks before you see your first paycheque, and most hotels require a credit card. Right away it is harder to move around, let alone reinvent yourself.
Let's look at the example of one famous head of state. He spent the first half of his life screwing around, doing drugs, getting arrested for drunk driving, and wasting Bush Sr.'s money. Suddenly he cleans up his act and buys a baseball team, becomes governor of Texas, and eventually President of the U.S. of A. Good for him.
Imagine this same kid 20 years from now. (Minus some of daddy's influence, perhaps.) Generally good kid gets into a bit of trouble when he/she is young, but cleans up and decides to get a job working for MS-AOL-Time-Warner-USA. (MATWU for short.) Person goes in for their interview, to face a series of questions, like a normal job interview. After doing quite well, the interviewer says this:
"You are very well suited for the job. I think you would make an excellent addition to the team. However your ethics do not fit with corporate guidelines. We notice that on your trip to Amsterdam you visited 3 hash bars in a 4 hour period, 1 strip club where you took part in two lap dances and consumed a good deal of alcohol. We also note that you visited Tokyo and stayed for 2 weeks at a VSP resort. Consorting with Vivendi-Sony-Panasonic, perhaps? I'm afraid we cannot hire you."
Who has never done anything they wouldn't want their prospective employer, prospective friends, prospective mate, or prospective client to know about?
spurioius reasoning (Score:2, Insightful)
Internal or ad-hoc identifiers are much worse than a public, well-designed system of national ID numbers. Among other things, if you don't know your secret government ID number or record locator, it's much harder for you to force the US government to comply with privacy regulations--even with a court ourder--they'll just claim that they "couldn't find the records" or that they "must have overlooked them" and get away with it even if found out. And if the government makes up their own internal system or uses social security numbers, you are much more likely to be the victim of identity theft or mistaken identity.
In order to protect our privacy, we need good privacy legislation that covers both government agencies and companies. And in order to protect our privacy, we need a well-designed system of national ID numbers--preferably numbers that are large and have a non-trivial internal checksum. Both of these would have to be decided at the ballot box.
The reason why this isn't going to happen is because the people in the US that are mainly concerned about privacy are also people with libertarian leanings. They just don't understand that the only way to protect privacy is through strong government regulations.
Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Go ahead and arrest me, Ascroft, you totalitarian son of a bitch, you'll have to do me like you did Padilla; have the military hold me in a brig without bringing charges, 'cause I a'int done a damn thing wrong. Or maybe I should just start looking around for another country. This country is great, but I'm starting to wonder whether the public at large is populated by morons or people too scared to come out of their bunkers. Freedom is something you have to want and want bad. It's incredibly delicate, and we're seeing it torn apart before our eyes. 1984? I don't think so. I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees. If America is populated by pussies, then just let me know and I'll find another place to live where they actually want their freedom. Sept 11 was an attack on our way of life. Judging by the way things have gone the last 11 months (patriot act, data mining, warrantless arrests, detention of American CITIZENS without a trial/lawyer/grand jury, etc) I'd say they kicked our asses. Cower in the dark if you like, but I will never call you a patriot. I was at the Statue of Liberty today, and it was still closed; you can't go inside. Why? The people of America are too scared to tell Bush to re-open it. What does it say when the people of this country are barred from entering our greatest symbol of freedom? What the hell does that say?
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Funny you should say that, because I said the same thing. I talked to the folks at the information kiosk and they said that Bush ordered a bunch of momuments closed off, and the Statue of Liberty is the only one he has yet to order re-opened. Don't ask me why, but according to them, he's the only one who can make the decision to re-open it.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
I was educated at the University of Maryland at College Park.
Daddy? Took off when I was about 9.
Fuck-off? Perhaps, but at least I'm passionate about my country.
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmm (Score:2)
It's about political control (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.cryptogon.com/2002_07_14_blogarchive
Another ineffective idea (Score:2)
What we do have is way too much cosmetic stuff that pushes the right-wing control agenda. Many arrests, deportations, and secret detentions, but few trials. Talk of a war with Iraq without Congressional approval. More Government secrecy about stuff that has nothing to do with terrorism. Plans for a huge internal security agency, something the US didn't need in WWI or WWII. Talk of using the military for domestic law enforcement. Warships for the Coast Guard.
Note what we're not seeing - competence at the top. Retired FBI agents write books reporting that FBI HQ is packed with bozos. (The field end of the FBI is generally considered better than HQ.) But there hasn't been a purge at FBI HQ, despite several scandals. Ashcroft is at best a lightweight, but he's still running the Justice Department. The head of FEMA was Bush's campaign manager. Cheney is still in office, despite the Halliburton scandals. These guys are not the team we need to win.
Why oh why... (Score:2)
If you look at the record in terms of what information was missed by whom, when, and why, it's pretty evident that little or NONE of it had anything to do with a LACK of information. Most of it was plain old incompetence, or a failure to allocate necessary resource. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that no information "TIA" system is going to do anything to solve that problem.
Ask Security Services to deny this (Score:2)
The terrorism argument is a dummy - bull*.
Ask the Security Services in the UK and US to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means e.g. face to face, personal courier or steganography.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will get caught.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
SURVEILANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - IT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: making you feel safer - that the government are doing something and the more malicious motive of privacy invasion.
Government say about surveillance - "you've nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"
This argument is made to pressure people into acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information - they want a surveillance society.
They wish to invade your basic human right to privacy.
This is like having somebody watching everything you do - all your thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
All your finances for them to scrutinize - heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent when they check on your taxes.
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more money spent on these measures will not protect you from terrorists.
P.S. On the Domain Name System, Corporations steal words that belong to everybody - abridging what words you can use - violating the First Amendment.
The Corporations illegally abuse and expand their brand using domain names - above all smaller businesses who use similar words - violating Competition Law.
The authorities LIE - they know how to make trademark domains unique and totally distinctive, as the LAW requires trademarks to be. Please visit the World Intellectual Piracy Organization [wipo.org.uk] - not connected with United Nations WIPO.org !
Re:Ask Security Services to deny this (Score:2)
Face to face meetings were probably their prefered method of communicating in the first place. Anyway don't expect the steganography techniques terrorists might consider to be just about hiding encrypted messages in jpegs.
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - "Meet you in the pub Monday" (human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
If a terrorist intends blowing up a tourist attraction then then can probably safely name their target
Okay, if it goes both ways (Score:2)
The problem with this system is that it's one-way transparency. We are transparent to them (the people in power who will have access to this system), but they are not tranto us. If I can get a list of who has looked at my records, and then look at their records -- in the same level of detail that they gained about me -- then I won't have as much of a problem with it. Reciprocal transparency will make it more fair, and help alleviate abuses. If Senator Porkbarrel's office investigates me, and I can investigate them right back, then they might think twice about using it.
Re:Unless you are worried about identity theft... (Score:4, Insightful)
The only people who are worried about these types of programs are the ones with something to hide
The fact that an AC said this deserves either a +1 Ironic or -1 Ignorant. Unfortunately you didn't include any sarcasm tags to help us decide.
Somebody mod parent up (Score:2)
Re:And, uh, who makes these things? (Score:2)
A lack of working willing to do the unethical?
A corporation is made up of people, if the individual people (or just enough to not make the task possible, heh) REFUSE to do something. . .
bah, a cynic would say that any population willing to build its own prison if paid enough money to do so damn well deserves to be imprisoned. . . .