OT: Orwell must be rolling in his grave...

[zenfreud]

Hey folks, Check out this editorial by Willaim Safire that appeared in today's New York Times. In case you ever wondered if you were being watched, it's pretty safe to say yes. Creepy. [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opinion/14SAFI.html]www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opinion/14SAFI.html[/url]

[whitefang]

I'm sorry. I didn't read the article. I didn't feel like registering. But by the post title, and gist of your post, I can make an assumption. If Orwell isn't rolling in his grave, he's probably shouting down(or up)from where he is a loud, resounding, "I TOLD you so!" Whitefang

[Philip OKeefe]

I didn't feel like registering either...

[Skip_dup1]

fortunately I`m already registered. It`s about that `Homeland Security` business-Poindexter is trying to create an all-seeing-all-knowing database that includes where and when you last took a pee.. If it passes, it might be good to cut up all your credit cards and use cash. It might be good to learn the art of disguise (for all the cameras). It might be good to borrow books instead of buying them or taking them out from the library. It might be good to create confusing, contradictory patterns in your buying habits-subscribe to Guns & Ammo, Elle and GQ.

[Mats Olsson.]

Can someone that is already registered please copy & paste that article here? /Mats

[Bunny Knutson]

You Are a Suspect By WILLIAM SAFIRE [b]W[/b]ASHINGTON — If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you: Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every Web site you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as "a virtual, centralized grand database." To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that government has about you — passport application, driver's license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from nosy neighbors to the F.B.I., your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance — and you have the supersnoop's dream: a "Total Information Awareness" about every U.S. citizen. This is not some far-out Orwellian scenario. It is what will happen to your personal freedom in the next few weeks if John Poindexter gets the unprecedented power he seeks. Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua. A jury convicted Poindexter in 1990 on five felony counts of misleading Congress and making false statements, but an appeals court overturned the verdict because Congress had given him immunity for his testimony. He famously asserted, "The buck stops here," arguing that the White House staff, and not the president, was responsible for fateful decisions that might prove embarrassing. This ring-knocking master of deceit is back again with a plan even more scandalous than Iran-contra. He heads the "Information Awareness Office" in the otherwise excellent Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which spawned the Internet and stealth aircraft technology. Poindexter is now realizing his 20-year dream: getting the "data-mining" power to snoop on every public and private act of every American. Even the hastily passed U.S.A. Patriot Act, which widened the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and weakened 15 privacy laws, raised requirements for the government to report secret eavesdropping to Congress and the courts. But Poindexter's assault on individual privacy rides roughshod over such oversight. He is determined to break down the wall between commercial snooping and secret government intrusion. The disgraced admiral dismisses such necessary differentiation as bureaucratic "stovepiping." And he has been given a $200 million budget to create computer dossiers on 300 million Americans. When George W. Bush was running for president, he stood foursquare in defense of each person's medical, financial and communications privacy. But Poindexter, whose contempt for the restraints of oversight drew the Reagan administration into its most serious blunder, is still operating on the presumption that on such a sweeping theft of privacy rights, the buck ends with him and not with the president. This time, however, he has been seizing power in the open. In the past week John Markoff of The Times, followed by Robert O'Harrow of The Washington Post, have revealed the extent of Poindexter's operation, but editorialists have not grasped its undermining of the Freedom of Information Act. Political awareness can overcome "Total Information Awareness," the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear. The Latin motto over Poindexter"s new Pentagon office reads "Scientia Est Potentia" — "knowledge is power." Exactly: the government's infinite knowledge about you is its power over you. "We're just as concerned as the next person with protecting privacy," this brilliant mind blandly assured The Post. A jury found he spoke falsely before.

[tnb]

This has been coming on for at least 20 years, so try not to be to suprised. When did Orwell write "1984" and "Animal Farm"? So I imagine that we have not been nearly paranoid enough.

[Hippie]

I have concerns about this whole 'fear propaganda' too. People want to feel safe and they will forfiet almost anything for the illusion of safety, it's all BS. Politicians build entire campaigns on stomping out crime, tougher penalties for criminals, etc. Nobody seems to want to talk about getting at the root of our problems or why the USA has the highest incarceration numbers; During WWII, there was not this amount of gov't. intrusion. We need to keep this whole terrorist thing in perspective and hopefully not make rash decisions. Hey, this is America, the strongest country in the world! We can't have a 'handful' of terrorists change our whole deal. Matt

[Franknputer]

I think we can take solace in these facts: 1) The guy behind this is not competant to pull this off. He's been busted before for secret campaigns of lesser scope, and would be in prison were it not for his political cronies. 2) The amount of data in question is HUGE. It will be extremely difficult to make any sense of a mountain of data that size - especially if they contract Microsoft to handle the job. 3) $200 million dollars to create & maintain data on 300 million Americans comes out to 66 cents per person.

[Addix Metzatricity]

[quote]Originally posted by tnb: [b]This has been coming on for at least 20 years, so try not to be to suprised. When did Orwell write "1984" and "Animal Farm"? So I imagine that we have not been nearly paranoid enough.[/b][/quote]"Animal Farm" - 1945 "1984" - 1949

[tnb]

Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: [quote]1) The guy behind this is not competant to pull this off. He's been busted before for secret campaigns of lesser scope, and would be in prison were it not for his political cronies. [/quote]I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but haven't most of his "cronies" been promoted?

[Franknputer]

[quote]Originally posted by tnb: [b]Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but haven't most of his "cronies" been promoted?[/b][/quote]Probably, but how does that make any difference? My point is that, in order to pull something Orwellian off, he'd have to maintain utter secrecy - which I don't think he can do.

[Hippie]

Mr. Kemp, Happy 2000. WooHoo!! Matt

[Franknputer]

Thanks, Hippie! :thu: [img]http://www.pangeapartners.com/about/Dplogo.gif[/img]

[E-money]

>>Nobody seems to want to talk about getting at the root of our problems or why the USA has the highest incarceration numbers<< I want to talk about it, but I'm not sure why the USA has the highest incarceration numbers. Better law inforcemenet?

[Groovepusher Sly]

[quote]Originally posted by Christopher Kemp: [b]I think we can take solace in these facts: 2) The amount of data in question is HUGE. It will be extremely difficult to make any sense of a mountain of data that size - [i]especially if they contract Microsoft to handle the job[/i].[/b][/quote]That's why I ain't worried. Sly :cool:

[Anderton]

<<1) The guy behind this is not competant to pull this off. He's been busted before for secret campaigns of lesser scope, and would be in prison were it not for his political cronies. >> I think the bill providing for this has already passed the House by a significant margin, and is working its way on a fast track to the Senate. Yes, it's mountains of data. But I don't think the purpose is to put together connections on a particular person, but be able to find, say, everyone of Syrian descent who subscribes to Guns and Ammo...and maybe even hold them without probable cause. I think it's safe to say that Hitler and Stalin would have found this an incredibly valuable tool in terms of finding "undesirables" to execute. Now, I AM NOT COMPARING GEORGE BUSH TO HITLER OR STALIN, OKAY? I'm just saying that in the hands of someone who needs to go a limited fishing expedition (e.g., to find someone like the Washington sniper by matching against profiles, past arrests, etc.), this could be a useful tool. But in the hands of the wrong people, it could be a source of nearly infinite abuse potential. Gee, sounds like most technology....

[Franknputer]

Actually I agree, Craig. I don't find a lot of solace in what I posted :eek: but, I think that history has shown that (often) abuses of this kind will not go unnoticed, regardless of the blanket legality of such a thing. (Trying to retain my faith in humanity here...) I fear a new age of McCarthyism coming from this new concern with "Homeland Security" - but eventually, we overcame that and I hope that we will overcome this as well.

[Wow]

[quote] 2) The amount of data in question is HUGE. It will be extremely difficult to make any sense of a mountain of data that size - especially if they contract Microsoft to handle the job. [/quote]Do you think Microsoft will take the gig since the gov. has been up his ass for the last 5 years . I think he will, have you ever heard of DR. Falkin from the movie war games? Bill Gates is now the doctor. I never could figure out why Clinton fucked with Gates so hard. I think the Gov is afraid of him. If you cant be um, join um . [quote]I think the bill providing for this has already passed the House by a significant margin, and is working its way on a fast track to the Senate. [/quote]This is correct, if you want to see something that is scary and funny watch C-span right now because they are deliberating it right now and robert bird is a trip to watch. [quote] I think it's safe to say that Hitler and Stalin would have found this an incredibly valuable tool in terms of finding "undesirables" to execute. Now, I AM NOT COMPARING GEORGE BUSH TO HITLER OR STALIN, OKAY? I'm just saying that in the hands of someone who needs to go a limited fishing expedition (e.g., to find someone like the Washington sniper by matching against profiles, past arrests, etc.), this could be a useful tool. But in the hands of the wrong people, it could be a source of nearly infinite abuse potential. [/quote]This is true if Hilary Clinton wins in 08 . We can argue all day about her but man they DID bend a few rules and what they could do with that kind of power.

[AlanThomas]

I'd like to remain optimistic about this but I really can't because things like this [i]always[/i] wind up being used unethically, one way or the other, even if the intent is honorable at the outset (which is certainly in questionable in this case). At the low end of the scale, one could easily see the federal government selling the information in such a database to advertisers. And the other end of the scale are illegal searches, seizures & arrests. I think it would (will?) be very diffult to stay "under the radar" by trying to do everything in a non-tracable way (cash, barter, etc.) because the fact that you're not on thier radar sort of [i]puts[/i] you on their radar. Of course, we're all toast here anyway, after complaining about it in such a public forum. :eek:

[Magpel]

Heck, financial institutions are doing this already, all automated--real time tracking of transactions. Following business rules, each transaction you make--a large deposit, for example--modifies your "profile," and immediately sends you customized offers through your medium of choice. Not only can this be done; the infrastructure is already in place. Direct marketing has been slow to embrace it because data cleansing is expensive, ROI is not proven, and budgets are tight, but the the technology and the "grand database" are already in place. Most people's profiles will still go unnoticed, of course, but with the right combination of suspicious activities, you will be flagged and brought to the attention of...the central scrutinizer?

[Magpel]

...But the really scary thing is the capacity for error. My name is John Burdick. My credit rating was almost destroyed once by a long-overdue J.C. Pennys debt owed by a man named Jake Bruda. No kidding. Now what if Mr. Bruda was a fire arms afficionado with a taste for Asian travel? The prevention of this is supposed to be the domain of what they call data hygiene, and it's really critical when you're adminitering something like a medical patient database or a certification exam database. But in something like this, errors will abound. Innocents will suffer. More like Brazil than 1984. Old Eric Blair would've loved Brazil, I think.

[AlanThomas]

You're right Magpel, the data has been under "collection" for years now. That's kind of what I meant by the "under the radar" comment. You've been doing tracable things all along. Somewhat suddenly, you stop. "Big Brother" comes across your rather sparse "activity dossier" and wonders why it's so empty. Soon thereafter, a dark sedan with tinted windows begins following you...

[Skip_dup1]

[quote]Originally posted by AlanThomas: [b]You're right Magpel, the data has been under "collection" for years now. That's kind of what I meant by the "under the radar" comment. You've been doing tracable things all along. Somewhat suddenly, you stop. "Big Brother" comes across your rather sparse "activity dossier" and wonders why it's so empty. Soon thereafter, a dark sedan with tinted windows begins following you...[/b][/quote]It`s not that [i]you`re[/i] doing anything different-it`s the data collection system that stands to make a huge leap in comprehensiveness and invasiveness. It`s at the point where that happens that the individual needs to consider countermeasures. There are two approaches, which I sort of alluded to. One is to keep as many of your activities as possible in an untraceable form-not really trying to vanish, but do exactly what the government does-create budgets within budgets, that are handled in a stand-alone, non- hackable non transparent way. The other, given the difficulty in keeping everything under wraps, is to understand the profile you are creating every time you make a transaction, and know how to totally subvert it. Every time you establish a pattern, take a step to estalish the opposite pattern. I mean, realistically it`s unlikely any office is going to commit the resources to follow any one person around, unless they think you will lead to something bigger. But this crap needs to be fought every way and any way possible, on principle alone if nothing else. Indeed, not that I`m nostalgic for the days when things were blowing up, but this might make interesting reading- [url=http://www.crimethinc.com]www.crimethinc.com[/url]

[Philip OKeefe]

I didn't feel like registering because it's just one more way for "them" to get more data on me... and spam me... ;)

[Skip_dup1]

[quote]Originally posted by Philip O'Keefe: [b]I didn't feel like registering because it's just one more way for "them" to get more data on me... and spam me... ;) [/b][/quote]what, you mean for the N.Y. Times? I can see where less signups are better but that`s such a mainstream source-the only thing it might say about you is that you may be a college person...and they don`t send spam, of any kind.

[Super 8]

[quote]Originally posted by skip: [b] [quote]Originally posted by AlanThomas: [b]You're right Magpel, the data has been under "collection" for years now. That's kind of what I meant by the "under the radar" comment. You've been doing tracable things all along. Somewhat suddenly, you stop. "Big Brother" comes across your rather sparse "activity dossier" and wonders why it's so empty. Soon thereafter, a dark sedan with tinted windows begins following you...[/b][/quote]It`s not that [i]you`re[/i] doing anything different-it`s the data collection system that stands to make a huge leap in comprehensiveness and invasiveness. It`s at the point where that happens that the individual needs to consider countermeasures. There are two approaches, which I sort of alluded to. One is to keep as many of your activities as possible in an untraceable form-not really trying to vanish, but do exactly what the government does-create budgets within budgets, that are handled in a stand-alone, non- hackable non transparent way. The other, given the difficulty in keeping everything under wraps, is to understand the profile you are creating every time you make a transaction, and know how to totally subvert it. Every time you establish a pattern, take a step to estalish the opposite pattern. I mean, realistically it`s unlikely any office is going to commit the resources to follow any one person around, unless they think you will lead to something bigger. But this crap needs to be fought every way and any way possible, on principle alone if nothing else. Indeed, not that I`m nostalgic for the days when things were blowing up, but this might make interesting reading- [url=http://www.crimethinc.com]www.crimethinc.com[/url] [/b][/quote]

[Super 8]

:confused:

[zenfreud]

[quote] Of course, we're all toast here anyway, after complaining about it in such a public forum. [/quote]See, this is the essence of the problem. Public debate is effectively squashed, or at least minimized, when you think somebody might be listening or watching. I have to admit I had reservations before starting this thread, but how chickenshit is that? Glad to see the thread is still alive, figured that my fellow posters were either paranoid or just plain apathetic. Which is worse?

[coyote]

What... one can't be paranoid AND apathetic, yet still give a hoot? ;) It's a huge problem because those who are perpetrating it do have good intent. But those who would preserve the nation by turning it into a police surveillance state miss the point: preserving the nation is an exercise in futility if we need to destroy the ideas & ideals which created the nation. I mean, what good is living in the USA if we end up just like the now-passed Soviet empire whose fundamentals & methods we claim to abhor? [quote]Originally posted by zenfreud: [b]Glad to see the thread is still alive, figured that my fellow posters were either paranoid or just plain apathetic. Which is worse?[/b][/quote]