Bruce Sterling On Total Information Awareness 488
securitas writes "Declan McCullagh interviews Bruce Sterling about Total Information Awareness (renamed Terrorist Information Awareness and raising concerns) or 'Poindexter's nutty scheme' as Sterling thinks of it. He predicts TIA will destabilize the government and lead to internal KGB-style coups. Whether you agree with him or not it makes for thought-provoking reading."
Well (Score:3, Funny)
(Feel Free to Insert another Author's Name, or the people I turn to for public policy, Hollywood Actors.)
Also in the interview, he mentions that Bruce Sterling is not his real name. With talk of "coups inside the Republican Party" and the KGB, I think that Bruce Sterling is Tom Clancy's pseudonym.
BTW, when he says "Poindexter" he is not refering to us computer nerds, he means John Poindexter [wikipedia.org], programmer, Navy Admiral, National Security Advisor, etc.
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot convicted criminal.
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Source: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Poindexter
Expanding on that... (Score:4, Insightful)
To "be impeached" is to be accused of a crime by the assembled Congress. Clinton was not convicted: he was not removed.
Impeachment is not a conviction. This confusion of terms was intentional by Clinton's enemies, and has infected the body politic. It is a murder of language, and a calculated one.
Clinton was accused of shading the truth (he didn't lie: he asked for a definition of sex from the judge, who told him intercourse. He'd had oral sex, which gave him an out.
Clinton was simply smarter than the criminals --leaking special prosecutor info is a crime -- who had set him up on a hearing concerning another setup - Paula Jones.
Starr and his elves had found out about Lewinsky the night before the PJ deposition. Clinton knew they knew, so it was a battle of wits with Clinton packing a rocket launcher, and his tormenters armed with a Rush Limbaugh slingshot.
The pieces of work from Starr's office told the judge that Lewinsky's affair with Clinton was pertinent to the Jones deposition. It wasn't. They merely wanted to get Clinton under oath, where he would be forced to make a choice: lie about his sex life, or tell the truth and wreck his personal and public life.
Clinton was smarter than that, and chose the third option: narrow the definition of sex, and then truthfully deny having that kind of sexx described by the judge. He simply was a better lawyer and a better man than the men who lied to the judge about the relevance of Lewinsky to the Jones case.
Of course, Clinton was fined for outsmarting his tormenters. And his witchhunters got away clean with lying to the judge, and got the only real "scandal" they could get after seven long years of trying to find anything other than unsupportable BS from his enemies to charge him with.
The Repubs, and some really stupid f-ing Demos, decided to give this pack of rabid misusers of a tax-paid prosecution the impeachment (accusation) they so achingly wanted.
The combined Congress realized they were being asked to remove a President for getting a blowjob. Sanity broke out.
Flashforward to today: a sitting President fantasized a dire enemy in a ruined country around the world. He lied and lied about the imminent threat to the US. He got his war, killing tens of thousands of men in pickup trucks and T-shirts. He maimed possibly hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children.He wrecked the power grid, cut off food for millions of helpless people.
Evidence for his fantasy was nonexistent both before and after the "war" (attack of Starship Troopers vs. the Flintstones). His people profit handsomely from the occupation.
And no one says "impeachment".
A blow job from an intern is more impeachable than the ideologically based murder of tens of thousands, and the theft of a country.
Re:Expanding on that... (Score:3, Insightful)
As a card-carrying member of the mythical "vast right-wing conspiracy", I can safely say that I have never heard this one. In point of fact, most right-wingers are thoroughly outraged by the moral spinelessness demonstrated by not only the GOP leaders of the Senate at the time, but also by the so-called "conscience" of the Senate on the left side, Joe Lieberman, in failing to act
Re:Expanding on that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that's the funny thing. Someone did say impeachment.
CNN, in an article from (IIRC) Findlaw. Two days ago. They're the only American media company I've seen even mention the word, but they did mention it... And though the article was seeded with the "well, I am sure our troops will find WMDs, please don't let the men with black helecopters come and take me away to Cuba" CYA phrases, it was pretty clear that the writer not only thought Bush had lied, but that there was a decent chance he might be
Re:Expanding on that... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, the American public would never
Re:Expanding on that... (Score:3, Insightful)
If that's the only cost to the USA from its criminal devestation of Iraq that you've noticed then you are alseep. A vast majority of the world is now convinced that the USA is a power-mad pack of culturally-illiterate techno-barbarians, intent on nothing less that global domination. The US has made the world a much more hostile place, to youselves and to the rest
Re:Expanding on that... (Score:3, Informative)
So what would you replace the UN with - I suppose we all just should do whatever the US says? Bow down before Caesar? Pax Americana indeed. The US has been trying to undermine the UN since the UN was founded. It has withheld money, bugged delegations, bribed weaker nations, bullied stronger ones. The UN should be fixed - not abandoned. The USA needs to recognise that it is just one country out of hundre
Re:Well (Score:2, Insightful)
Now Sterling is telling us that deep databases of personal info will destabalize our government causi
Re:Well (Score:2, Interesting)
Relevant or not, here are some of his "recent" predictions [kurzweilai.net].
I like the 2004 one about human cloning.
Didn't some crack-pot group claim this last year? (I'm too lazy to google it)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most famous "predictions" is that of Orwell's 1984, which (of course) has not exactly come to pass. On the other hand, many concepts of 1984 have proven tremendously robust and recognizable, such as "double speak" and "double think." You can glimpse shadows of the larger issues, such as three major world powers which engage in shifting alliances of 2 vs 1.
So, read Sterling's "Distraction" and be amazed by an enthusiastic, over-the-top speculation on trends in politics and manipulation of the public, with intriguing little sidetrips on new technology and ancient history (well, not exactly ancient --- but I found the Regulators and Moderators to be truly interesting folk; they don't need to ever come into real existence to be evocative, and to think, "well, really, just what keeps them from existing?") The whole idea of "reputation servers" is coming into existence right now, implemented by Google, blogs, and (yes) Slashdot's
cooperative editing and posting system. (Not to mention USNews's annual beauty pageant for universities. The USA has such a tremendous stable of great universities, it is pretty discouraging to see a "top 10" gather so much shallow attention.)
At any rate --- concern about TIA and its kin (which should include Google, you know --- see the interview with Sterling) is perfectly legitimate, and if SciFi isn't perfectly prognostic about what it's going to mean, well, do our leaders really do any better? Does Ashcroft have a conventional understanding of the Bill of Rights?
Any think tank that wouldn't want to have a Bruce Sterling around is a think tank that's too timid to ever say anything truly mind stretching.
Re:Well (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to disagree with him on that point. They who control the TIA would have heavy political clout. They would stay hidden and mostly unknown to average Americans, and a change in political leadership would have no effect on their ownership of the big brother machine. So as long as the smart politician kowtowed to them, his skeletons would stay safely in the closet. If you want historical precedence for this just read up on J. Edgar Hoover.
Also the owners of TIA would have little need to actually destroy someone with the information they would have. They could just coerce candidates drop out of a race (like they did to Perot) or vote a certain way or use the information to further their own agenda (like they used the Office of Fatherland Security recently to track down the Democrat representatives who fled Texas to Oklahoma.) Sunshine laws and the Freedom of Information Act were meant to counteract these type of abuses but the faction in power now flagrantly violates these laws (e.g. Cheney's meetings with Enron and other Energy execs.)
TIA could be viewed as one more check and balance in the system though one not defined by our Constitution. However just because I don't think it will be destablizing doesn't mean it will be good for America. If Uncle Sam dances to the tune of secret puppetmasters then our system will come to resemble that of the Soviet Union and I think Bruce Sterling's reference to the KGB was an apt one.
Slashdot Humor (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia... oh, forget it.
remember folks (Score:2, Funny)
Support citizens rights to use nuclear weapons for hunting and home defense!
Re:remember folks (Score:2, Funny)
And of course (Score:5, Funny)
Total Information Technology.
(with apologies to Robin Williams)
The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Its been slow in coming, but since 9/11 we have raced towards it as fast as we can, with the publics support. There is still a ways to go, but the momentum is there.. its a matter of ( short ) time.
Its sickening. Looks like the terrorists won, their goal was to elimate the way of life we had here here, and they sure as hell did.
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh? My health insurance is still as expensive as fuck, and my college tuitition is $36,000 a year and rising. Those are pretty bad indicators of a "socialist state" forming...
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
What part of "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" do you not understand?
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like someone who is just pissing away that $36,000 per year on college if he can't get the concept of 'subordinate clause' into his head.....
Luckily, the guys who wrote the 2nd amendment didn't work/live in a vaccuum... they left tons of writings on why they believed the things they fought for. Read up on it a bit; I've got a standard $100 bet with acquaintances who are anti-2nd amendmen
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes no distinction between external threats and internal oppression (for a good reason).
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2)
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2)
Most of the European democracies don't like their citizens being armed, yet they have no problems with governments being overthrown by dictators.
Iraq and Afghanistan, amongst others, had plenty of weapons and still fell under control of nasty dictatorships.
Debating Tip: If you're going to use something as an example, it's generally not good to have massive amounts of counterexamples.
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:4, Interesting)
You do realize this is the TIA article, right? The very point of the parent article is that we have a good reason to be worried about our government!
If the counterexamples are poor, then your original example - Germany under Hitler - was poor as well. It was just as ready to be controlled by fear as Iraq and Afghanistan were. (btw, Iraq was a very prosperous and stable country before Hussein - so they actually weren't ready to be controlled by fear) Your point remains weak.
As for the ad hominem attack, I'll just ignore it. After all, resorting to logical fallacies is a good sign one's losing an argument.
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:2)
Where did I imply that only the government has the right to free speech?
"No longer a guaranteed right"? (Score:2)
I think you need to take a step back, put aside your personal biases, and read the documents for what they are at their most fundamental.. a foundation of a country based on INDIVIDUAL rights and freedoms. Not to be 'molded' over time due to 'feelings'. they are absolute and timeless.
Re:"No longer a guaranteed right"? (Score:2)
In 1939, in the Miller case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to restrict ownership of certain weapons (in this case, a sawed-off shotgun). That differs rather substantially with your interpretation of the Amendment.
their Interpretations are incorrect (Score:2)
Lots of things happen that shouldn't in this world.
The destruction of our rights ( all of them.. I'm not just speaking of the 2nd amendment here ) is wrong. Though some are more on a personal level to me then others, they are all important, and should be fought for.
Doesn't mean its not going on, but its wrong..
( and we are getting WAY off topic here.. we should take this elsewhere )
Re:"No longer a guaranteed right"? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not exactly. From US v. Miller:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a âoeshotgun having a barrel of less that eighteen inches in lengthâ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that is use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
Aymette v. State actually concerned a concealed knife, not a firearm. Interestingly enough, there was another decision about the same time from either Tennessee or Kentucky that found that a miniature shotgun was a useful weapon for a militia.
And, on top of that, Aymette v. State turned on the presence of the phrase "for the common defense" in the Tennessee Constitution at that time. That particular phrase had been proposed and explicitly rejected by the US Senate during debates on the Bill of Rights. So, even that qualifier is questionable.
We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgement must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.
There are two key phrases here: "not within judicial notice" and "remanded for further proceedings". The former phrase means that the Court would not conclude that a sawed-off shotgun was or was not part of the ordinary military equiopment, because no one presented evidence to support it. The reason? It's at the beginning of the decision:
No appearance for appellees.
No one showed up on behalf of the defendants, leaving the US government to present their case unopposed. Had there been even a semi-competent defense, it would have been a non-issue, because the US Army was using sawed-off shotguns as late as the Vietnam conflict. They were common in the trench warfare of WWI, which preceded this decision in 1939.
That brings us to the latter phrase: "remanded for further proceedings". The case was supposed to go back to the lower court to determine if the firearm in question did indeed meet the criteria established by the court. But by this time, Miller was dead (under suspicious circumstances) and apparently the US Attorney quickly cut a deal with his co-defendant, Frank Layton, to avoid the embarrassment of having the conviction thrown out after an evidentiary hearing.
So, while US v. Miller did indeed set the criteria for restricting ownership of certain weapons, the criteria very clearly permits the firearms that the government now prohibits.
An honest reading of US v. Miller doesn't yield the interpretation that most attribute to it.
Miller, 1939 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"No longer a guaranteed right"? (Score:3, Interesting)
A clear example, which is of prime relevance, is the fact that the Constitution and Bill of Rights never once use the word "privacy". In fact, there is no attempt to explicitly proscribe a right to privacy, nor a right against government explorations of the individual. In fact, the argument over whether or not the makers of the constitution intended there to
Re:"No longer a guaranteed right"? (Score:3, Informative)
It never once uses the word "internet" either. Is it your contention that the Constitution is therefore irrelevant to any matter concerning the internet?
Furthermore, your argument is hung precariously on a semantic hook which does not support it, at all. When the founding fathers talked about "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and e
It's right there in the 4th (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't take a terribly "liberal interpretation" of the 4th amendment to see a "right to privacy" here. I mean, it would be pretty extreme to claim this prevents surveillence
Re:Read the constitution for your answer (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe we can start gutting the other ammendments too.
If you're so damn sure that the 2nd is absolutely no longer necessary, your obligations are clear as a citizen. You need to get an ammendment passed that does away with that right. There are several methods available, and provided that you can do so, I will be satisfied that I do not have the right to own firearms. The sad truth is, you're
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
TIA, would be fascism not socialism.
Ill give you a 'partial' (Score:2)
I personally believe our country is leaning towards socialism more so then fascism, thus my comments are directed towards that end....
Re:*sigh* Taking the flame bait.... (Score:2)
Please Educate yourself. Just don't read the liberal handouts. Watch the BBC's cover of the House of Commons and learn about the trouble with state health care!
Oh yes we are trying to eradacate education, with terriable things like testing students and TEACHERS, giving parents money for private scho
Re:*sigh* Taking the flame bait.... (Score:2)
Read about some of the fun shit going on in Texas, then get back to me.
Define "Dumb Conservative" (Score:5, Insightful)
These poor souls would rather focus on why they (the middle class) have to pay a bit more taxes than the poor instead of focusing on why they have to pay a LOT more taxes than the ultra-wealthy or profitable corporations like Microsoft. You knew Microsoft paid $0 taxes in 1999, right?
These morons also like complaining about things like a minimum wage bill because it raises the minimum wage rather than complaining about the luxury yacht fuel subsidies buried inside that same bill. "To hell with the undernourished child of a single working parent, my taxes shouldn't pay for that! Instead, my hard-earned taxes are gonna help filthy rich bastards play on their yacht because my misguided middle-class ass is too lazy to get informed."
smartest: rich conservatives
average: everyone else
dumbest: middle-class conservatives
I hope to become a rich conservative sometime this decade but until then, it isn't in my best self-interest to be a conservative or liberal right now.
What's your definition of "dumb conservative"?
Completely absurd (Score:5, Insightful)
These things can be done in any type of government. In fascism, which you seem to be implying, the people wouldn't have a choice. In a democracy, with the right support from the media, it is also possible.
None of the indicators of socialism are present, by the way. On the contrary, we are moving further away from socialism. College costs are rising, health care costs are rising, companies (ie SCO) are very busy suing each other over IP violations, tax cuts are being made
Please don't use 'socialism' as term for any bad government. Socialism is something very specific, and not what you are talking about.
And why in the world are you saying that 'the terrorists' won? What the US is becoming is the opposite of what terrorists would want. How could a group of terrorists want us to invade their home countries?
Re:Completely absurd (Score:4, Insightful)
I think what nurb meant is that we are slouching toward a fascistic state, and I think under the Nazional Republican Party, it's a defininte possibility. Consider:
TIA fits into the pattern. The Nazional Republican inclination to turn over social welfare and other non-military, non-"Homeland Security" programs to the private sector, as you accurately describe, also fits into the pattern of a fascistic ideology: all of the economic and political power concentrated into the hands of an elite few. Information on the citizenry is the key to control. I think Sterling's scenario where the "KGB" apparatus would be used by various branches of the Nazional Republican Party against each other is his fond hope. To take a page from Reichsfuhrer Bush, VOTE FOR REGIME CHANGE IN 2004. This makes a damn good bumper sticker slogan.
Re:Completely absurd (Score:2)
Re:Completely absurd (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:2)
Totalitarianism not Socialism (Score:2, Insightful)
You're a moron. (Score:2, Insightful)
I read the article, I don't see anything about a changing economic model.
Its sickening. Looks like the terrorists won, their goal was to elimate the way of life we had here here, and they sure as hell did.
Yeah, because terrorists just want you to have better health care, right?
You're a moron. 90% of the world's democracies are socialist. And you know what? ALL of them have a higher standard of living than the USA.
Perhaps you should learn the r
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Do remember that socialism is an economic system where most of the industries are monopolized by the government. This is certainly not occurring. One thing that is occurring that is an aspect of socialism is less attention is being paid to the individual, and more is to the group. This happens whenever there is a common goal. Take World War 2 and the 'greatest generation'. It's possible that this was the least selfish time in the US's
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I've noticed this on
Of course, this means I'll probably be modded down on this post.
To the point:
We are slowly evolving into a new form of government:
democratic fascism.
People get to vote, there are multiple parties, but fundamentally, it's a one party state - like a hydra - many heads that hate each other, but the body walks in one direction, and we're all trapped on its back.
When things get rough they throw the slaves some bread (social services) and circuses (TV). This shuts the proles up, and the ruling class stays put.
Same as it ever was.
RR
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:2)
I work reasonable hours, speak my mind, go out and have fun, and live with the suspicion that our government is involved in things beyond a madman's greatest dreams.
Which is pretty much what I was doing before "terrorism" became a household word.
there is still hope (Score:4, Insightful)
Under the U.S. form of government [slashdot.org], we are getting decade-record levels of unemployment and crime, but at least the rich are a little richer, if you don't coun't externalities like the crime rate and overall property values.
Just don't count on all those nearly three million newly-unemployed people to vote on election day. I wouldn't put it past Bush to do something "exciting" right before election day. After all, you have a guy who claimed that he didn't tell anyone about his drunk driving conviction because he was trying to protect his daughters, but he doesn't ask the Secret Service to lift a finger to keep them from being caught drinking underage. He simply can not be trusted. How many times did he leave the "have you ever been convicted" question blank on Texas election forms? However, there is still hope [deanforamerica.com].
Re:The USA is over as we knew it. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it wasn't. Most of the terrorist organizations out there couldn't give a stuff what Americans do, as long as they do it in America.
Most of the serious terrorists these days (Bin Laden et al) want Americans out of the Middle East.
*Looks at Afghanistan, Iraq*
Yep, that worked.
The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism (Score:5, Interesting)
If you accept the premise of the article, I don't think there's any doubt that we're close to fascism today. It's still early and we could reverse course in less than 18 months. But I think there's little doubt that history will observe that the US came close to losing WW-II 60 years after the fact.
I'm also sure that many of these people have no idea that they're fascist. Hitler was not Satan incarnate, Nazi Germany did not come into existence overnight, and we must always be on guard against history repeating.
As for the OP's uninformed comments, the proper description for the countries he described as "socialist" is "authoritarian" -- and there's no doubt that this country is shifting towards authoritarism in addition to fascism.
Weeeee'll meet agaaain... (Score:5, Funny)
intersting article (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because it's the atom age, it doesn't mean we'll all have a private atom-powered helicopter. Just because it's the information age, it doesn't mean we're all going to profit or be made happier. It has secondary and tertiary effects that cannot be predicted. You don't envision a phone answering machine and predict the Lewinsky scandal--even though one is impossible without the other.
I personally believe that the efforts individuals make to better understand things, like computer technology, then living in the "information age" will leave that individual with a greater sense of security--And wouldnt that individual be in a greater position to lead the rest of society toward whatever might be better? Like a security expert speaking out against TIA with a solid argument?
relieving (Score:5, Funny)
Re:relieving (Score:5, Insightful)
The attitude that "it can't happen here" is exactly what allows it to happen.
Re:relieving (Score:4, Insightful)
So let me get this straight.
The US imprisoned completely innocent people without a trial, access to lawyers, or any kind of due process for more then two years. After two years of imprisonment and "interrogations" they let them go and gave them a pair of jeans and a koran for their time. And you are actually proud of this fact? Honestly and truly you see nothing wrong with putting people in a concentration camp for two years when they are completely innocent?
Oh what about the other 600+ people? Do you know what is happening to them? Are you allowed to know?
One more thing. What about the unkown number of people being held in concentration camps in afghanistan and quatar? What about them?
you have some weird and warped sense of right and wrong if you think it's OK to lock people in a cage for two years and then let them go when they are no longer useful to you. It's sick, twisted and downright evil.
Re:damn trolls (Score:3, Funny)
Yes completely innocent. Remember they were let go. Or are you suggesting they let guilty criminals go.
"Get accused of adultery? Get buried up to your head and stoned to death."
Once again you are suggesting that people guilty of such henious crimes were released by the US military. BTW did I miss the trial?
"Twice you call Gitmo and foreign bases "concentration camps." "
Re:relieving (Score:2)
Always a problem... (Score:5, Interesting)
The government is most likely to be able to track transactions that occur digitally, or require storage of information on computers that are not under the control of the individual whose data is being collected. Do you think that it's likely that terrorists will use these means, now that it's been announced that the government is collecting it? I'd think that they're more likely to buy guns from someone who has switched from running drugs into the country to running guns, to contact their fellow agents through 'chance' encounters, and to transact whatever seemingly legitimate business they use either with cash or through legitimate electronic transactions, which will make them blend into the electronic noise just like everyone else. How is this going to help matters?
The government already knows when one buys a new handgun through legitimate channels, through the Brady Law. They already should know about most of those who have explosives experience, since that is usually military training based to begin with, and demolitions companies, mining companies, and anyone else legitimately using explosives has to get their employees licensed. "Cyberterrorism" is an absolute joke of a term as long as easily broken-into OSes like anything Microsoft has ever put out is still in the mainstream and is still being used as a server, and there are probably dozens, if not hundreds of other examples like these.
I don't see how collecting all of this data is going to help.
More Information About People = KGB Style Coups (Score:4, Insightful)
TIA or NO TIA it will happen anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
Data Mining is here. While the Republicans are more astute in the practical applications of tech and the Democrats tend toward the hip useless gadgets, Both sides are gearing up and will be using data mining against each other.
I have always said that KGB agents must have wept when they realised the information your typical marketing or credit card company have on the american citizen.
Poindexter may be a criminal and a boob American Express isnt.
Re:TIA or NO TIA it will happen anyway (Score:2)
Re:TIA or NO TIA it will happen anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
But credit card companies don't employ people with guns and badges that can kick in your door and take you to a holding cell without a reason--and thats the difference!
The biggest threat TIA offers the American public is, if you've read the Detailed report to congress [darpa.mil], they decide who, when, and where to attack Americans-to protect you and me-Americans.
Information Excess (Score:3, Interesting)
If you live in a small enough town, everyone knows everyone elses business...
When you remove the distance that geography or caste once maintained you are left with a very small planet where everyone may not know everyone else...but if they need to they can dig up any amount of dirt on you they want.
TIA is an initial step towards a decentralized type of always on information about anyone you could ever want...
And the only people who will be safe will be those without govt assigned ID (which means no CC's no ID's no Bank statements etc..) and the insanely wealthy...those who can afford to keep their sins a secret.
Much like it would be in a small town.
I hate small towns.
To quote the constitution... (Score:5, Informative)
but that seems to have been forgotten, along with.."Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech or of the press."
Campaing finance reform restrictions on commericals 60 days before elections.
and "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Every law restricting non-criminals from owning certain types of weapons.
Some times I wonder if legislatures even fscking read the constitution any more.
Re: To quote the constitution... (Score:2)
> but that seems to have been forgotten, along with [...] and "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Every law restricting non-criminals from owning certain types of weapons.
Where did you get the restriction to non-criminals from the Constitution? Are you saying that the Bill of Rights is open to interpretation based on common sense and the needs of society?
Re: To quote the constitution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: To quote the constitution... (Score:3, Interesting)
Criminals have always been subject to having their constitutional rights curtailed in various ways. For example, they're not allowed to vote. So, is the fact that criminals are not allowed to vote a justification for poll taxes and poll tests and other 'needs of society' reasons to keep people from voting?
Re:To quote the constitution... (Score:2, Interesting)
We just have to wait for a new precedent to be set, overturning bad laws..like the Patriot Act.
Re:To quote the constitution... (Score:5, Informative)
Rewriting the constitution [mnftiu.cc]: It's not just for legislators anymore!
ARTICLE IV OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be received.
Recent decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court have held that police can:
Search you home upon the consent of someone who has no authority to give same. (Illinois vs. Rodriquez)
May search every room in your home including the basement and attic without a warrant if they are arresting you in a private residence. Evidence seized may be used in court. (Maryland vs. Bule)
Hold you under arrest and incarcerate you for 48 hours or longer without charging you for a crime. (County of Riverside vs. McLaughlin)
May question you and elicit confessions from you while you are incarcerated without identifying themselves as police officers or advising you of your rights. (Illinois vs. Perkins)
Subject motorists to mandatory sobriety tests without any indication that they have been drinking, or their driving is impaired. (Michigan State Police vs. Sitz)
Stop your car based upon an "anonymous tip" which the court described as "completely lacking in the necessary indicia of reliability." (Alabama vs. White)
May stop, detain and question you anytime, anywhere and for any reason even if there is no evidence or indication of any illegality or wrong doing. (Orange County vs. Lopez)
May record and use as evidence telephone calls made or received from a cordless phone without a warrant and without violating your right to privacy. (Tyler vs. Berodt)
Re:Moderators on drugs again? (Score:3, Informative)
Every male between the ages of 18 and 45 (55 if the person has served in the military), and every female between 18 and 35 (45 with military service) is a member of the state militia.
As a member of the militia, when you are called to service, Mass state law requires you to bring your own firearm.
This state is schizophrenic, sometimes...
Oh, and to respond to the idiot you replied to: The militia was never abolished, because
TIA renamed yet again... (Score:3, Funny)
I thought it was Neil Stephenson at CFP2000 (Score:2)
ttyl
Farrell
Don't forget (Score:4, Informative)
Renaming It Shows What They Think About us (Score:5, Interesting)
Just by renaming it to sound anti-terrorist, are we supposed to shut up and stop questioning it?
Instead of making our government BIGGER & MORE INTRUSIVE & STRIPPING AWAY OUR RIGHTS, why don't we investigate how 9/11 was allowed to happen when we had ALL THE INFO REQUIRED to prevent it?!?!?
Oh, I forgot--the investigation into that was quietly squashed without much media attention but we got color-coded alerts to make us feel that something "real" appropriate is being done.
"Hey, lets rename this unpopular law/project/war/etc. so people think it has to do with anti-terrorism, they'll shut up for sure especially if the media makes anyone speaking against it appear stupid, weak, liberal, unpatriotic, etc. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a bunch of unpopular shit done what would've caused riots/impeachments just a few year ago! Best of all, when people start to ask questions about the Pres or VP dealings with Enron or Halliburton again, we can just change the terror alert color so the media can refocus on that without resorting another murder case in California."
"And just in case we don't have any more terrorism in the USA, lets go piss off the Palestinians and make the Middle-eastern countries think we're gonna invade them--that'll stir up enough shit to make at least another group of crazies blow something up here--and we can milk that bombing to our advantage just like 9/11! We'll be silencing our critics and getting unpopular initiatives done for the next 50 years using this strategy!"
I'm obviously exaggerating to make a point but really, don't you think there's a grain of truth to associating unpopular initiatives with anti-terrorism just to get people to stop questioning it?
Sour Grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
At some point, you realize you lost, pick yourself up and dust yourself off, and plan for the next one. It's done, there is no chance of the election being reversed or any other outcome. Get over it, and try to get Dubya out of office this upcoming election if you don't like what happened.
Re:Sour Grapes (Score:5, Informative)
If it's anything like his columns for Wired, it will be filled with bitterness over the 2000 elections spilling over into everything he writes about.
Can't believe I'm taking time to refute this silly and groundless statement. Sterling's first column for Wired, issue 10.12 (December 2002), covered Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index -- no mention of the 2000 elections. Subsequent issues to date:
Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, that is the type of thing that inspires confidence.
great, like Reality TV 24x7 (Score:4, Interesting)
Ministry of Silly Walks (Score:5, Funny)
You heard it here first. Poindexter and TIA is the Ministry of Silly Walks.
(And I'm supposed to feel better because they changed "total" to "terrorist"? That's just insulting to everyone's intelligence... grrr.)
Total - Terrorist (Score:2)
Man, I suck at google :( (Score:4, Interesting)
10 seconds my ass. I stick in the search terms "bruce sterling", "real name", & "fiction" (after all we need to separate BS the science fiction writer from BS the plumber), I get 390 hits. After glancing through likely pages, I get the real names to a half dozen different writers, but not Bruce! I even go to vivisimo, get some hits unique to google, but still no real name. Man, the New World Order better not depend on my lame ass skills.
Now I know I could track it down if I spent two hours going through search engines, varying search arguments, but what the hell am I doing wrong??? *sigh*
Re:Man, I suck at google :( (Score:2)
Bah. Took me about ten seconds. Just try "Bruce Sterling pseudonym" (not that it's much of one).
Reciprocal Transparency. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that the databases will exist - large corporations and government agencies will just not tell you they exist and keep using them if they're made "illegal" - and can only get more powerful and far-reaching, I think that the best choice is to make the database read-accessible to everyone rather than limit access to a powerful and unaccountable elite.
Note that I am NOT asserting that it's particularly nice that the databases exist in the first place - just that the genie's out of the bottle, and that the best way to minimise abuses of power would be to minimise secrecy. Otherwise we'll probably end up with 1984.
It's amusing that personal privacy advocates are often the same ones screaming for government or corporate openness - while privacy (== secrecy) exists, anyone handed power will have a screen to hide behind to hide abuses of said power. Yes, humans like privacy. But privacy, whether for the government or the citizen, may prove fundamentally in opposition to the maximisation of the freedoms a civilised society can provide, while still remaining a civilised society.
This is explored further in David Brin's excellent book: "The Transparent Society: Will Technology force us to choose between Privacy and Freemdom?" As he points out, "people generally seem to want privacy for themselves and accountability for everyone else...".
No (Score:2)
bah, i have no fear of TIA (Score:4, Interesting)
By the time its all over, we'll have Furher Ashcroft annoucing they are searching for a heinous terrorist known as "Heywood jablowme" aka "Al Coholic".
Sterling's assumptions (Score:4, Insightful)
An insane information-hungry KGB or a relatively open and decent government? Vote with your feet. Get the hell away from those lunatics. Who the hell wants to live in a USA with a TIA in it? Why would you want to invest it that country? The currency would crash. The political elite would annihilate one another.
Mr. Sterling is making a big assumption here: you will always have somewhere that is different to move to. One _conspiracy theory_ I've been harbouring is that the USA's plan is to politically assimilate the rest of the world so that there will not BE another place to go to, in effect. Everyone will have basically the same privacy, human rights, freedom of speech (or lack of it) laws.
Hardly a conspriacy theory... (Score:3, Interesting)
In case you missed it, the US basically said (at least everybody outside the US read it so) that either you're with us, or you're against us in the war against terror. And of course everybody that is against us is terrorists or supporting terrorism, and must be neutralized. Hence, it's not over until all are with the US, either t
Terrorist? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to realize that the government is making suspects of us ALL.
Offtopic what? (Score:4, Funny)
The threads spawned by it range from everything from Marxism to gun control.
It's great, there aren't enough OT modpoints in the world to take care of it
Stupid Bulk Storage. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are just to damned lazy to get off their dead asses and do the Human Intellegence they are paid to do.
T.I.A. = Totally Ignorant Acceptance (Score:3, Interesting)
Government Surveillance
Why do government have no respect for your right to privacy?
Liberty has to be one of the most important things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you - meant to instil respect of them and fear of authority.
It can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing them. How?
Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia (Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:
Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating by other means - most especially face to face or personal courier.
Terrorists will have to do that, or they will be caught!
Perhaps using mobile when absolutely essential, saying - Meet you in the pub Monday (meaning, human bomb to target A), or Tuesday (target B) or Sunday (abort).
The Internet has become a tool for government to snoop on their people - 24/7.
The terrorism argument is a dummy - total bull*.
INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA
This propaganda is for several reasons, including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are doing something and c) 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 illegal.
It does not address the real reason why they want this information (which they will deny) - 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 personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them.
This is everything - including phone calls and interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET [zdnet.com]: Whether you're just accessing a Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such transactions will converge around Internet protocols.
Why should I worry? I do not care if they know what I do in my own home, you may foolishly say. Or, just as dumbly, They will not be interested in anything I do.
This information will be held about you until the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example, here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which killed 31 and injured many).
This group had fought for better and safer railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine outstanding people - with good intent.
So what was their crime, to deserve this
A good source for patsies... (Score:3, Insightful)
On the radio show This American Life [thisamericanlife.org], a segment [207.70.82.73] described how police used the case summary of an FBI profiler as a template for a forced confession. Under pressure to find the killer(s), police used intimidation and duress to coax a suspect to sign a false confession, the conviction since overturned by DNA evidence. The suspect, unaware of case particulars, was given a confession to sign lifted verbatim from an FBI profiler's report. The police used a best guess of how the crime occurred based on the evidence to frame a patsy.
In the not distant future with Total Information Awareness, it will be trivial to find a patsy for any crime. The person murdered attended the same university and you shared a class or two (enrollment database). You enjoy violence and murder (video store database). The murder occured a mile away and within 30 minutes of when you filled up your car at the gas station (credit card database). We have established relationship, motif, and opportunity.
My point is that extremely causal data will be used to make relationships where none exist and to support conclusions which no hard data supports. It will become trivial to gather a group of suspects for any crime, none of which have anything to do with it.
The databases will be used to get tough on crime, which was a euphemism in the 80's for put pressure on police and courts to find a patsy and put them away to make us politically significant. The wave of released prisoners based on evaluation of DNA evidence in recent years is proof of this.
Are you a terrorist? I bet if we look at the proper data points we can make anyone look like one...
Re:my thoughts..... (Score:5, Interesting)
A researcher would do well to think carefully about the potential usage before taking any money to work on TIA.