Keeping An Eye On Total Information Awareness 434
mesozoic writes "Wired is running a story about hackers publishing John Poindexter's personal information (like satellite photos of his home) to protest the proposed Total Information Awareness system. This is just too funny, and it may even raise a few more eyebrows among the national media."
Total my arse (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Total my arse (Score:5, Funny)
Now that would be handy. That way we could also get a grip on these pesky guys calling themselves The A-team.
Re:Total my arse (Score:5, Funny)
White van? (Score:5, Funny)
I pity the fool who doesn't know that!
Re:White van? (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry, only one keyword at a time. (Score:2, Funny)
Good luck.
PARTY! (Score:4, Funny)
boo hoo... and I wasnt invited
Re:PARTY! (Score:2, Insightful)
Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:3, Funny)
It's called "risk management".
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
So why not make Poindexter's records available too?
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:4, Insightful)
What?
Correct me if I'm wrong (note: I am not a lawyer, nor a US citizen, my judgement may be off).But if he was *convicted*, then he was found guilty... so he's a criminal.
If, later, he was pardoned, doesn't that just mean that the king ^H^H^H^H president decided he'd suffered enough and should be let free?
If new evidence proving innocence had come to light, surely he shold be retried and found innocent, then be paid compensation?
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Short memory? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure [fas.org] he has [guardian.co.uk], he just can't be tried and convicted for his criminal acts because Congress handed him immunity.
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:3, Insightful)
And remember, shoot first, ask later!
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:2)
Poindexter hasn't broken any laws? Are you serious (Score:2, Interesting)
In you or I were in anything like his
shoes, we would be rotting in Levenworth.
Go read your history son.
Supplying weapons to terrorists not a crime? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Supplying weapons to terrorists not a crime? (Score:2)
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
I think those are significant questions that should be answered, probably in exhaustive detail. But appearently questioning the people who answer to you is offically unamerican (if the insipid talking heads are to be believed). It's vaguely reminiscent of that old McCarthy news reel footage in a way. Which is why I'm not worried. How'd that end up? McCarthy is an american villain, poor ol' J Edgar a joke, MLK a canonized hero Ali a living legend. When the executive branch has detailed records of Justice Thomas's prefered Long Dong Silver rentals, who's knows what kind of civil liberties crusader he'll turn into. He may even regain his powers of speech.
Among other things, Poindexter violated his officers loyalty oath, and helped make it possible for Osama to get some of those Stinger missles. Hardly a saint. He and Ollie, by all rights, should be fighting wild dogs for scraps of meat in urine soaked alleys, but not enough oral sex was involved to warrent much investigation.
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:3, Insightful)
And the database doesn't track criminals, it tracks everyone, on the premise that any of them *might* become criminals. You, me, anyone.
Of course, the next logical step is if you know that you want to lock someone up, you study their record, and find a law you can use against them. If one doesn't exist, you make one. It's very convenient.
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:5, Insightful)
In 1776, the American Revolution began with Americans declaring they would no longer be subjects of the King. In 1865, the Revolution ended with the final defeat of aristocracy on American soil. In 2001, the counter-revolution began; it is now coming to fruition. It took us a little longer than France or Russia, but the end may well be the same
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Funny, but kinda tangential to the point (Score:2, Insightful)
Good post. As a non-American and a regular basher of the American administration, I'd like to add one additional thing loudly and clearly right now:
I don't hate America. I actually rather admire it, and the principles upon which it was founded. The disjunct between principles and practice is one of the prime factors in why America is subject to more criticism than another country which has never aspired to those goals.
I wish you well - America has wandered into a true crisis within the past few years (although in retrospect the seeds can be seen germinating as far back as the Nixon and before). I really hope the forces of good triumph for all of our sakes.
Will this help? (Score:4, Interesting)
It could provide him and his supporters with some evidence as to why they need such a system. Something along the lines of "hackers" (to be written as "terrorists" in the PowerPoint presentation) being able to find high-ranking DoD personnel even at home, only goes to prove we need to keep tabs on everyone.
I'm not a fan of the proposed system either, but this kind of protest might do exactly the opposite of what they intended it for.Re:Will this help? (Score:5, Insightful)
TIA would even be worse, since it'd collect non-public data as well.
Re:Will this help? (Score:2)
Not "criminal". Criminals are booked and go to jail, or at least are booked. The problem is "terrorists" and "potential criminals", who don't do anything illegal up until they committ an act which harms a good many relatively innocent people.
A legal act with a high probability of causing harm to others is a legal act that needs to be watched. If you buy a gun, the government needs to know who you are and you need to produce the gun when the police ask you where it is. If you drive a car, the government needs to know that you know how to drive a car & that you drive that car (relatively) safetly.
Whether or not gathering public data about someone in an easy-to-find place is a dangerous act is something altogether different. If it is, then safeguards should be in place either against it or to watch those that do it. If it isn't--well, then the feds can find something better to do with their taxpayer-funded time.
Re:Will this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to pick nits with your evidenciary dilemma, but:
Technically, that's not true. If they plan to commit an act of terrorism, they're guilty of conspiracy, whether or not the actual action is carried out.
Re:Will this help? (Score:2)
That's a good point, but I guess what I was thinking was that Poindexter could raise the point that if it's really that easy that anyone can do it, that TIA is required so that the powers that be know when they're doing it and what they're collecting. Theoretically, "they" should be the terrorists, but seeing as we don't always know who the terrorists are before they do anything, "they" really means "everybody" in TIA.
So the argument he could use then would be that terrorists could be using a similar approach, and point to this reporter's efforts as proof of its feasibility.Re:Will this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
-- dunno where I read that.
Re:Will this help? (Score:4, Insightful)
Notice how police state uses a police force to exercise repression- a non-police state will use a police force to maintain its citizen's freedom.
Re:Will this help? (Score:2)
None of those require a police state.
We should let people sort out the speed limit among themselves, keep familiy business within families, and just trust in capitalism's free hand to ferret out unsafe building practices...
Hello happy socialist, you might try reading that line again. It did not say "if you need a policeman" or "if you need the police". It was referring to a "police state [reference.com]", which is just a wee bit different.
I think the better application of your quote would be "If you need a police state to enforce your laws, then YOU are wrong."
Oh now, lines like that should require a preface of, "In Soviet Russia...".
A more apropos phrasing...
"Any law that requires the good will of law enforcement to be enacted fairly is by it's very nature bad law. The only guarantee is that it will be abused eventually."
Re: (Score:2)
Streaming Video (Score:2)
The Admiral Poindexter Aerial Webcam
Keep it up. (Score:2, Troll)
I want every little peice of information, right down to what toppings he orders on his pizza. Dont stop until they realise how wrong what theyre doing is.
I'd even be willing to offer some server space for a more elaborate project like this.
Send in the real crackers (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not want publically available information like his phone number and house construction materials. I want real data, of the type the government is trying to conglomerate. Satellite photos Bah! What's next, a whereis.com map?
Print me a list of his credit card transactions, the itineries from his plane journeys and his bank balance and I will be impressed.
Re:Send in the real crackers (Score:4, Funny)
Quick! Call Hugh Jackman's character from Swordfish!
a neat idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
it's particularly encouraging that the press don't seem to be universally attacking the stunts as well.
it staggers me that people don't immediately start shouting "1984!!" when this sort of thing is suggested. im also a bit disappointed that clinton is a supporter, i thought he was a bit more libertarian than that
Misread (Score:5, Funny)
Re:a neat idea. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:a neat idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
Liebermann said that quote only once (during a campaign visit at a church), but he frequently called for more open discussion of religion. You know, in schools and other places we don't have a choice of being. He thought it was just terrible that people have to "hide" their religion just because they're in a public office where they are required to represent diverse populations, or they are asked to impartially judge crime and law, or whatever their duty. He was appalled that people think that just because not *everyone* is religious, that religion should be a personal matter... especially for public officials.
The same guy, who ostentatiously kept the Sabbath and went to synagogue every Saturday and made much of these things in his campaign, was first asked nicely by the same synagogue to quit flouting his religion for political gain. Then, when he didn't, they kicked him out.
This shit sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
What about the former criminal who's done his/her time and gone straight? Will they be marked for life because of some absurd TIA system? Will they have to wear a big C on their chest?
Sounds familar? This country is going down the toliet faster then my last bowel movement. It makes me sick.
Re:This shit sucks (Score:2)
Re:This shit sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, Poindexter doesn't seem to have been disadvantaged by his criminal past.
Re:This shit sucks (Score:2, Informative)
Good for the goose... (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting-- the "re-education" of America? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder what will happen in schools in a few years? When we were all kids growing up, we were taught that we were the greatest nation because we had certain freedoms, that the government had limited power over watching us etc, instead of places like soviet Russia (where the CD players listen to YOU--- woops, wrong post) that watch and control their citizens.
What is probably going to happen is that kids in schools today will be taught (slowly as not to draw attention to it) that it is good and proper for the government to watch its citizens, that there is no such thing as a "right to privacy" etc... and kids being kids will dismiss our ideas of personal liberty, privacy, etc as old fasioned - or worse, that they see mommy or daddy using PGP or linux, or planting a tree in front of the security camera in their house, and thinking that mommy or daddy must be terrorists...
Just my 2 cents' worth...
RickTheWizKid
Re:Interesting-- the "re-education" of America? (Score:5, Informative)
My kids are continually getting lectures on what proper citizens do; this of course bears very little resemblance to what they see at home. My first inkling of how bad it was getting was when my daughter, who I've taken shooting before, asked why it was OK for us to have guns when her teachers all say they are bad.
Grrrrr.
Simpletons... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets say someone kills someone else with a gun. The act of killing can be judged based on many factors (although it is my opinion that it's easier to prove that any killing is in some way bad rather than that any killing is in some way good.) The act of being killed can also be judged, but only weakly ... what if the person killed ran in front of an operating machine gun?
But the gun ... no, the gun is neither good nor bad.
The sarcastic asshole liberal would also like to add, "I'm sure this is what you explained."
Re:Interesting-- the "re-education" of America? (Score:3, Funny)
mmm'kay?
Guns are bad, m'kay? (Score:2)
Simple solution - follow the money (Score:5, Interesting)
For the TIA to happen, there has to be money.
That money has to come from taxpayers, allocated by congress, then some government contractor has to take that money.
Give the TIA treatment to:
1) Congresspeople and their top staffers. Congress members who are in favor of this idea get the TIA treatment. Russ Feingold should have nothing to worry about, as he was the only one with a backbone WRT the PATROIT act.
2) The CEO's, lead techs and board of directors of the contractors who TAKE the "dirty money" should also get the TIA treatment.
You could start off with pictures, telephone numbers, tax info...that is low-hanging fruit. Add in any court cases they have been involved with.
Re:Simple solution - follow the money (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the TIPS program was even proposed is alarming, not to mention what will be when it's created
Re:Think of it as Democracy in action. (Score:2)
It will happen, unless.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I sometimes think, that our goverment has opened the doors to the world, not for cheep labor, not because of humanity, but to delute the mass of people who have voices and care about where they live. That gives them a agenda, a reason to clatter the sabers, and let you know how they are going to spend BILLIONS in finding the bad guys they let in. Oh ya, and help their buddies become rich. Why should they care, work two years, and get full pay for life.
I suggest you talk to your VOTING friends, parents, and anybody who will lend a ear, that this is a BAD thing. Its hit the papers here in Dallas, so it makes a nice conversation topic. Actually it helps having a known criminal working on it. Makes the whole administration look bad for supporting the idea.
An Impossible Dream (Score:3, Informative)
Gilmore's tone (Score:5, Insightful)
Using such playground language only serves to paint Gilmore as some juvenile lefty-crank. Gilmore's article would have greater impact if he chose to speak plainly and coolly in an adult voice.
We know he's emotional about this issue, but take a few deep breaths, set the emotion aside, gather your thoughts and express them rationally and clearly. There are far too many of us on this side given to tantrums and rants.
dude, ratfink works for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
He is a fuckin' ratfink. Actually, I think the word 'fink' needs to be broadly applied to all of America's current ruling aristocracy.
I refuse to say who I am. (Score:5, Funny)
One of the problems of privacy advocates is that you can never get a reliable attributable quote from them.
Too Late (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask Security Services to deny this (#6) (Score:4, Insightful)
What a load of bull*. Why has NOBODY asked the Security Services the following? I have posted this argument several times before.
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" (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 investigation? It was just for showing up members of government to be the incompetents they were.
As usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the character of these good people.
Our honourable government would rather defile the character of its citizens, rather than address their reasonable concerns.
The government arrogantly presume this group of citizens would not worry about having their privacy invaded.
They can also check your outgoings match your income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe. All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you cannot account for every cent.
The authorities try make everything they say sound perfectly reasonable.
e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency have said that they want, "the same level of accountability in cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".
Do government currently keep records of everything that you touch in the physical world to analyse?
No they do not - So then, is that the same level of accountability?
They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like some pervert sex offender that they have to keep track of. Would any person of intelligence call that accountability?
Do not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.
In UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything.
Americans - the Total Information Awareness plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are more technologically aware, are you really that easily led?
I cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to them. I know from experience, as fact, they have no morals and will purposefully twist this information to use against you. I have documentary evidence of this - actual government agency case notes. Should government take legal action to deny that they pervert how personal information is used, then these documents may be viewed in a court of Law.
P.S. The United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization and the United States Department of Commerce are hiding the simple solution to trademark and domain name problem. The solution was ratified by honest attorneys. Please visit my site [wipo.org.uk] - not associated with United Nations WIPO.org. The United Nations WIPO deal with these conflicts - but are without honour and too cowardly to directly answer my easy questions (as are the US DoC).
Re:I would...but one voice gets drowned out (Score:3, Funny)
Always good to hear about new folks entering into the electorate commenting on things they don't know anything about. Don't forget to vote in the primaries!
Open up (Score:5, Insightful)
There also needs to be an audit committee. Comprised of randomly selected registered voters.
If they can't make it open and accountable, then no amount of rules can make it tollerable in a free society.
--Mike--
Re:Open up (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you have access then you can grant access to other people. This means people will start REQUIRING you to grant them access for various reasons. Some jobs will be labeled "sensitive positions" and won't hire you without full access. How long before parents start making this demand of baby sitters? We have to protect the children you know.
-
The Truth Is Out There (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, come on. (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, come on, they have access to all your information in case of need anyway. They can already subpoena banks, airlines, get your criminal records etc... so what if the FBI can access your records at any time? You think they're going to find it funny that you rent a pron video of animal action once a month? They're not even going to care... the local store clerk has far more chance of finding it funny. Having information accessible to governments is not a problem unless you're naughty.
If you seriously think that a central repository of information about you is so much worse than the chance of it doing good by catching criminals or terrorists, I personally think you're a dumbass. You think they're even going to look at your records unless the computer highlights something dodgy? You think that your credit card information will be published online for anyone to google? Yah.
If you don't trust those people who'll be working with the information, do something about it - lobby for better selection procedures, vote for someone else. If you think harassing somebody who rightly thinks it's a good anti-crime system is a good way of preventing the system occuring, ask yourself - who's it going to help?
Come on, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
They can already subpoena banks, airlines, get your criminal records etc... so what if the FBI can access your records at any time?
That is the whole point! Yes the FBI can get this information, but first they have to prove to a judge that there is probable cause that you are breaking the law. They can't just walk down the hallway and say, give me everything on X and don't ask why.
The US Constitution and laws are built this way for a reason. There is a whole system of Checks and Balances to help prevent misuse of power. To prevent, specifically, the tyranny the colonies were living with under the English rule. How have those goals to prevent tyranny changed in 200 years?
That haven't; some politicians have just forgotten why the country was formed.
Come on everyone, this whole post is basic 9th grade civics.
Re:Come on, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes the FBI can get this information, but first they have to prove to a judge that there is probable cause that you are breaking the law.
Well, they used to, anyway. You need to catch up on the Patriot Act and some of the other anti-terrorism legislation that's been passed recently.
Flaws to your logic (Score:5, Insightful)
They can do this. You are correct. But this requires concent of something called a "judge". I like to think of this "judge" as an impartial third party with little interest besides the law. Under the TIA, they won't need a judge, they can just access all your information and profile you.
Ok... let's throw up a for instance. You make a large cash withdrawl to loan a friend money for rent. You have to do this every couple of months he's kind of down on his luck. Now you go to the book store to purchase a book for your English class, Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. A couple months later you move to Chicago, so you buy a one way plane ticket. No big deal, you are not doing anything wrong.
Now, do the same things, for the same reasons, being a 26 year old Middle Eastern Male...... Now you have the FBI NSA ATF etc. grilling you. But you weren't being "naughty." just "Middle Eastern."
I am just trying to help you see the flaws in your logic. You are entitled to that opinion. Just as I am entitled to the opinion that if you seriously think a central repository of information will do so much good in catching terrorists, that you would waive your right to privacy and proper searches, I personally think you're a coward.
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:5, Insightful)
Having information accessible to governments is not a problem unless you're naughty.
You're trolling, right? Please say you're trolling.
You think they're going to find it funny that you rent a pron video of animal action once a month? They're not even going to care...
I perform expert witness testimony in computer related criminal cases, most of which revolve around obscenity allegations. I can say, with some authority, that you have not the slightest fucking idea (no pun intended) what you are talking about. Beastiality is covered by most obscenity laws, so not only will the FBI care, they will put you in prison for it. The numbers the FBI has to make to keep their job is convictions, and computer geeks who've been sent child porn images via spam make very easy convictions. I've seen guys go away for less than the example you provided.
They can already subpoena banks, airlines, get your criminal records etc... so what if the FBI can access your records at any time?
A subpeona is one thing. A blank check search warrant is quite another. Given the lengths I've seen the FBI go to in order to get said search warrant, I can say that Society As We Know it will be quite different when the need to do so no longer exists.
If you don't trust those people who'll be working with the information, do something about it
Unless the 4th, 7th, and 9th amendments have been removed from the Constitution, I'm not supposed to have to do anything about it. That's how rights (are supposed to) work.
Re:Oh, come on. (Score:2)
You're talking about the same 'old boys club' that persued any and all pieces of dirt they could possibly drudge up to smear Clinton's name. If you truly believe that the Bush administration won't use these same measures for the upcoming election I'm afraid you're terribly deluded. We're not talking "Democrat bad, Republican good" or vice versa... This is a deplorable practice that plagues all world politics.
cowardly vigilantism muddies the water (Score:2, Insightful)
1. The TIA system *could* be applied to personal information.
2. Poindexter is an unliked former government official with a criminal record.
Regarding 1, what people are missing is that there are two aspects (at least with respet to this program) of developing software: technology and policy. With TIA, the technology is mining large quantities of *some* data to find patterns to help stop terrorists. I don't think many on
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
Regarding 2, Poindexter was probably a great choice for the technical development of the program (he's really smart), but in hindsight a bad choice for personal reasons.
So what can we as software developers do? I think we have a duty to do what we can to ensure our programs are used correctly. Should people who do research into data mining stop because it might be used against innocents? No - someone else *will* develop the program, and they might not care about personal freedom implications. In the case of data mining, we should do as much to make the programs smart enough to limit (as much as possible) their inappropriate application to innocents. A few ideas: ensure that the program tells users when they are returning results that aren't valid, when they are being applied incorrectly, etc. But ultimately we cannot control how our work is applied - it's like developing any powerful technology such as, say, a web authoring tool - yes you can use it to promote hatred, tell how to bomb your local clinic, or publish my personal phone number and pictures of my house because you don't like me.
Just trying to present a bit of balance...
Re:cowardly vigilantism muddies the water (Score:2)
Now there's a faith based initiative! (Score:3, Insightful)
You sir, are a bonafide optimist. I, however, consider myself more pragmatic. I find myself unable to place my faith in a "higher power", and unwilling to place it, perhaps more precariously, in my fellow man.
Why would Kenneth Lay lie, he's a shareholder too! As an example.
pondexter and kissinger (Score:2)
Solution looking for a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean the horrendous events of Sept 11th didn't slip past the security services because there wasn't enough information available, they slipped past because none of the analysts connected the dots between known associates of terrorists in the USA + money being sent to these people from Saudi + lots of odd(*) people wanting to learn how to fly jets = big friqin problem.
Increasing the amount of detail that the analysts have to deal with would not solve any of the problems that allowed Sept. 11th to happen, but would make the governments job of cracking down on US dissidents easier.
It's the same in the UK. The civil service seem very eager for there to be a national identity card, and keep proposing it as a solution for a variety of different problems.
One year it can be used to combat terrorism, the next it can be used to crack down on asylum seekers. ooh how about we use to prevent identity fraud ? Every time the public refuses to accept this government monitoring of them, but still the civil servants keep suggesting the same plan over and over.
* Odd people = Students who come to the US on a visa, then are allowed to drop the studying and start learning how to do a job (breaking the terms of their visa), and who then act suspiciously enough during the lessons, so that the instructors call the FBI to warn them they think the students might be terrorists wanting to fly the planes into buuldings [webcom.com]
Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Solution looking for a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, if your goal is to simply arrest and deport individuals who violate visa restrictions then that's enough. However, lots of non-terrorists violate visa restrictions every day, and investigating, arresting and deporting all of them is unlikely to be practical or popular.
the second is grounds to start an investigation (which will turn up further causes for suspicion if the target is indeed up to something, eventually firming up into grounds for arrest and prosecution).
I agree that an investigation is warranted if there's actually reason for suspicion, but the hard part is determining what reports are valid and which are not.
The existence of this sort of database would allow investigators to better assess each individual instance prior to beginning a full-scale investigation. It also means less time wasted investigating people who are unlikely to be real threats.
The advantage of keeping the data dispersed is that it raises the bar high enough to discourage casual and illegal snooping. If a Fed has to make a few visits and involve a few other people (some of them outside the government) every time he wants to put together a dossier on a target, he's less likely to do it without legitimate reason than he would if he could just pull it up from the comfort and privacy of his office.
That's a good point, but I think there's also a legitimate need for a rapid response to certain types of threats. If we want to prohibit casual and illegal snooping then we should put technical, procedural, and legal measures in place explictly designed to prevent and punish that sort of abuse. If someone is about to poison the water supply or shoot the governor then it's the wrong time to deliberately hobble the people sworn to stop it.
Jam the system (Score:3, Interesting)
Won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
I may be off base here, but every time I see what is effectively a "There will be too much data for them to abuse (or attack one person)" I think the following:
That sounds, and is, silly; you only need to use a small part of the border to cross illegally. I think the "too much data" argument is equally silly. You don't need to use all of the data provided to perform illegal actions, just a small part of it. Similarly, adding a bunch of noise won't prevent someone from being persecuted because they emailed the same phrase as a joke.
Putting data into one place is dangerous, period.
Don't complain too much, people... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess a few of you voted Libertarian, and thus can't be blamed, but the rest of you made your bed - now lie in it.
Re:Don't complain too much, people... (Score:2)
Re:Don't complain too much, people... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, in theory, Libertarians want govt to stay out of our lives and uphold this principle equally with regards to all the ways govt is intrusive. In reality, almost every Libertarian I've ever met is a greedy ahole who doesn't want to pay any taxes but expects all the roads to get paved anyway. If the party tried to focus more on "hey, we're the party for freedom" instead of "hey, vote for us and no income tax" then I think they might get more of a following.
Government press releases (Score:2, Informative)
Partial Quote Below
Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)
The next addition (if it's not part already) of TIA will be keeping track of who accesses public databases looking for information about public figures.
Remember our good friend Henry Kissinger? He just resigned from the non-partisan committee to investigate September 11, and changed his answering machine message because of all the flak over having a war criminal and cover-up artist in charge of the most sensitive piece of police work going on right now. I'm sure he's in favor of locking up people who look for his personal info... or at least overthrowing their democratically elected leaders and installing a dictator who will kill them anyway.
(aside: I can't stop laughing at this one joke on the most recent page of Get Your War On [mnftiu.cc] -- When Kissinger signs a government paycheck, does he use a ballpoint pen, or the bloody, severed limb of an East Timorese child?)
Prescience of Douglas Adams (Score:4, Funny)
Connecting the Dots argument (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm tired of hearing the "connect the dots" argument for two reasons.
Re:Connecting the Dots argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not the FAA contacted the military, there would have been no jets around those planes. Until 9/11, we thought that the worst that would happen with a hijacked plane was that it would be crashed and all the people in it (including the hijackers) would die. We also thought that that was the *last* thing the hijackers wanted.
The reason the fourth plane never hit a target was because someone on their cell phone found out about the first three, and realized they were all going to die no matter what they did... and the least they could do was make sure no one on the ground died too. Until that bit of info filtered in, it was "common knowledge" that hijackers are only deadly if you don't cooperate. i.e. they won't kill anyone so long as you don't send military jets up to escort them.
Just after 9 a.m. EDT on 9/11/2001, planes were reclassified as weapons of mass destruction. But no one imagined they would be used that way until then, and no one thought to treat them that way either.
problem is information monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
If information like taxes, license plates and vehicle registration, purchase patterns, driving records, medical treatments, etc., were universally and publically available, I think we would have fewer problems than we have now. Most people would realize that their deep, dark secrets are not so deep and dark--that there are many other people with similar issues. It would keep politicians and regular folks more honest and polite--because nothing would be really anonymous anymore. And blackmail would be pretty much impossible--how can you blackmail someone if everybody can find out almost anything anyway? And, finally, people could negotiate their salaries sensibly--right now, chances are you don't know how much you are being paid relative to your co-workers--how can you ever get an efficient labor market if the prices are not known?
Of course, public access does not mean that things need to be as easy as Googling someone. I think Brin has captured a good balance between privacy and publically accessible information in his book "Kiln People" (it's incidental to the story): basically, you can find out, but the data is not aggregated in a single place, so if you do want to find out, it still costs you some time and money.
Welcome to a stalker's wet dream.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if information is difficult to access, but still present, who will be the most likely to search it out? We can see who right now - those who want to cause some form of embarrassment or harm to the person.
What happens to the woman who's husband was abusing her if he can track down where she now lives? What happens to the poor 68 year old single man who happens to use his credit card to buy a lot of lacey underwear and garters that happen to be his size? How about the head of the PTA or school principal who in her off hours frequents the fetish clubs?
Maybe you won't try to impose your morals on these people, but can you honestly say there's nobody out there who will?
Brin's arguments are nearly as flawed as Marx's in that they fail to take into account basic human nature, and give all the power to those people who have no sense of shame - usually those who believe their actions are the most righteous.
Also, when reading Brin's Transparent Society, he horribly glosses over the problems of inequitable power. He blithely assumes that if we can see all our bosses peccadillos we will have as much power over our boss as he does over us. Of course, this is ludicrous - we can't fire our boss if we don't like his choice of reading material.
If we all lived in a world where people used reason above all else to make their choices, maybe the fully transparent society would be a good one. Unfortunately, we don't. People tend to be reactionary, prejudiced, and frightened. Knowing something does not equate to understanding it, and as a whole, we tend to react violently to things we don't understand.
The worry that doesn't get talked about (Score:3, Interesting)
But there's something so rarely considered, especially in the mainstream media:
Who says TIA is going to work right or get built right?
I'm not just talking it becomes a failure - though it could be. I'm talking about the screw-ups that can happen - and the screw ups that may deliberately occur.
Hackers/Crackers. Someone deciding to make a back door. Someone inside deciding to sabotage it or have some fun - or worse, manipulate it to their own ends.
It's a project WAITING to go wrong.
I know, let's built a bottleneck! (Score:5, Insightful)
LETS BUILD A HUGE INFORMATION BOTTLENECK FOR SECURITY!
Yes, beyond the fact it's an Orwellian nightmare, it's also creating a central repository and system that, once people get using it and dependent on, represents a hideous bottleneck.
Sorry, we can't do that - the TIA system is down!
Damn, the data got corrupted in the TIA system and we arrested all of Paraguay!
Who are these guys Jim Shoe and Bill Fold . . . ah, great, the sorts missed the joke names again.
Someone hacked the TIA system and we can't get in.
Someone cracked the TIA system and accessed the information on all of Los Angeles.
Nice job guys. Great idea. TIA can be the central repository for screwing up, as WELL as flushingthe 4th Amendment down the toilet.
data is NOT information (Score:4, Insightful)
If those same billions were spend on security guard training within airports you will at least get better trained security guards.
It's time to implement my term-limits plan... (Score:3, Interesting)
TIA - A gift to terrorists and our enemies (Score:5, Insightful)
One can lock their valuables in a trunk to deter a thief. However a strong thief will just walk off with the chest.
If TIA goes through it's going to be the perfect target for terrorists and other enemies. Imagine the chaos that can be caused by compromising it? Imagine what horrific acts can be planned if its data is accessed. Imagine what damage a compromised individual within TIA can do.
Then toss in the fact it turns the government against its citizens - a perfect situation to take advantage of, and a great blow to America's image.
So, if you want to fight terrorism, fight TIA. Otherwise we're giving terrorists and others a nice chest to walk off with.
Gilmore is wearing Sauron's ring (Score:3, Insightful)
The wrong is in the doing, not in the whom it is done to.
Where are the Republicans; the real Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
The good old Republican party used to be for less government and less government in your shit. What the hell happened to that? These fucking neo-cons that are running our country are scary mofos.
Yes the ACLU should be throwing a fit and they are, but everyone (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Greens) should be putting up their fists and fighting this blatant abuse of power.
Please write or fax your politicians and tell them what you think. Harassing some dork with phone calls is funny, but this aint Crank Yankers this is politics and prank phone calls are going to stop anything. The only hope is that the media stop sucking Bush's dick and start talking some smack.
You might want to check this out. (Score:3, Informative)
What ARE you talking about? (Score:3, Insightful)
Our founding fathers fought, and many of them died, just to avoid having a government that interfered too much. Perhaps this needs to happen again, but I'd rather see it not happen.