I've been reading on and off for some time about a Pentagon program called "Total Information Awareness" (TIA). The latest is this San Jose Mercury News article, which seems fairly typical: it summarizes the TIA program, plays up inflammatory, silly, and/or irrelevant bits, and gives no in-depth analysis at all. I've read stuff like this from the ACLU, the CATO Institute, and quite a few other parties. And the more I read, the more frustrated I get with the people doing the analyses.
The dumber parts of the coverage emphasize silly mistakes that computer programs can make. These are things that anyone who's done software and database development can attest to: computer programs often give out silly or useless information. This is news? Sane human beings are capable of looking at the data a computer program generates and deciding whether it makes sense or not. That's why we still hire humans to run computers.
Otherwise, from what I can glean, this is a program which will take a bunch of data, which is already freely and publicly available, and combine it in ways to try to spot patterns which might point to potential terrorist activity.
The fear of civil libertarians is that this will somehow result in "Big Brother" or a "Universal Surveillance Society" because, while the information may be freely available and unconcealed now, the very vastness of the information has somehow protected us all with a curtain of privacy.
Or that seems to be the logic. If I've missed something, please tell me. Is there anything in any of the information we have so far which suggests that TIA will be able to get at new sources of privacy-protected information that law-enforcement authorities do not already have full access to?
From where I sit, it seems that the worst-case scenario is that one day the TIA program will decided that Dean Esmay may be a terrorist. This would cause the FBI to look at me for a while, then maybe show up at the door to ask me some questions.
This appears to be the biggest fear I'm supposed to have. Because no one--absolutely no one--suggests that the TIA program will bypass the courts, or give law enforcement authorities the ability to arrest people for mere suspicion, or to search their homes without a warrant, or hold them without charge. Indeed, I see no evidence presented so far that it will change anything about how the system currently works as far as civil rights go. Have I missed something?
I would certainly agree that if--I said IF--the TIA program wants to get into data that normally requires a warrant, then that should face a court challenge. I also have no problem with Congress or anyone else wanting more information about TIA, or wanting to be able to build protections into such a system to prevent it from being abused. But all of that seems like par for the course, and exactly how things are supposed to work in a free society.
I respect thoughtful concerns. I don't respect paranoia. Much of the coverage seems based on paranoia to me. What have I missed?
One thing that normally does require a subpeona is medical records. You'll hear the paranoid complaining about that, but I have seen no documentation suggesting that TIA will have direct access to medical records, all of those warnings come from the opposition.
Fair enough, Dean.
TIA should be able to withstand the light of day, in the form of a lawsuit filed by The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).
They recently requested a temporary restraining order in U.S. district court asking the judge to overturn the Defense Department’s decision not to release information about a controversial research project.
The restraining order, would force the Pentagon to give EPIC any documents related to the legal authority for the project, its impact on privacy and civil rights, and the activities of the project director, former National Security Adviser John Poindexter.Convicted felon, John Poindexter.
Who's the genius who keeps picking these guys? Poindexter, Kissinger...geez-o-peet.
Are you trying to piss me off?
But, Ara, Pointdexter's conviction was overturned. That makes him squeaky-clean now. Heh.
Yeah.
Iran-Contra: a desperate attempt to free some hostages and to help bring freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and free elections to a country called Nicaragua. The first failed, the second succeeded. The rest was a nasty argument between the White House and Congress.
The notion that any of this can be called "corruption" is a sad, sick joke. I thought so when I voted for Mike Dukakis, and I think so now.
In the meantime, Poindexter is an innocent man under the law, and pardoned on top of it. Except for the rabid, hateful Taliban wing of the Left, no one else cares.
Get over it. Reagan's gone, okay? He's been vindicated on everything else, but you people on the hard left did a great job of shaming him on that horrible attempt to free hostages, defeat mass-murderers, and spread freedom and democracy.
(Thank God the independent prosecutor statutes are gone. They were an abomination from start to finish.)
Reagan cut a deal with the monsters who killed our boys in Beirut.
I'll forgive him for that...
...but I'll never forget.
Gee, Ara, I didn't know the Persians were responsible for the Beirut boming. Besides which, you forget the simple fact that the Marine commander in charge did not implement basic security procedures.
As for "monsters"; Imperial Japan did a lot worse damage, and so did the Democratic Republic of North Vietnam.
The veterans of both wars don't seem to have a problem with their former enemies, Ara. Why should you? Hmm... :)
Dean, I was 100% behind defeating the Sandinistas in Nicarauga, but does that justify felony? Let us recall that the only reason that Pointdexter went free was the judgement that his deal for immunity covered testimony that established his guilt.
Casey:
Have you heard of Pasdaran?
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) or Pasdaran was formed following the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in an effort to consolidate several paramilitary forces into a single force loyal to the new regime and to function as a counter to the influence and power of the regular military.
In the book "Democracy Betrayed", the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran claims that Mohsen Rafiqdust, the former Minister of the Pasdaran Corps, admitted that Iran had attacked the Marines' barracks in Beirut. He said, "The TNT and the ideology that sent 400 marines, officers and soldiers, in the marines' headquarters to hell was sent from Iran."
I don't know that this can be verified by independent sources. But I would urge you to recall that contemporary news accounts had Ayatollah Khomeini applauding the success of the attack. It was clear to me then (and many others), that it was the mullahs who had inspired, funded and trained the Lebanese Shia who pulled it off.
"The rest was a nasty argument between the White House and Congress."
No, it was not a nasty argument. Someone in the Whitehouse broke the law. Try not to spin this one too much.
TIA is a bad idea. You can rationalize it all you want, but it is still a bad idea.
Even if the most of the information is available to the public it is still a bad idea.
When Microsoft tried to do much the same thing with Windows XP there was a rather large hue and cry--so, why no hue and cry now that it is the government doing it? And why no hue and cry that the person leading the effort is a convicted felon?
The Boland Amendment may well have been unConstitutional, and there were counselors to the White House who strongly advised taking that stance from the beginning and acting in open defiance of it. The administration chose not to take that course--or did it? Some in the White House believed that's exactly what they were doing.
Yes, Iran-Contra was a nasty argument between White House and Congress. That's the best way to describe it. Was it irresponsible? Yes. Was it stupid? Yes. But "corruption" it was not.
And by the way, the people they thought they were trading the "arms" with (they were mostly military spare parts, by the way; "arms" is an inflammatory description) were not, or so they believed, the same people who were responsible for terrorist activities. They believed they were trading with moderates who wanted to open relations up with the west.
They were wrong, and they were foolish. But if you want fairness, tell the truth: they didn't think they were dealing with terrorists, and their goal was freeing hostages.
---
I was recently at Temple Beth El here in the Detroit Metro area. They have there some floor tiles from a 2,000+ year old Jewish temple. They bought them from a group of Palestinian militants who were ready to blow the building up.
What does that make them?
Ummm, Dean, I gotta disagree with you on this one. Even if TIA amounts to nothing more than collating and analyzing information which is already freely available, still, it's a bad, bad idea.
There's way too much information being gathered on each and every one of us, as it is. Way, way more information than anyone could have any legitimate reason for gathering. I know I'm calling for the barn door to be closed long after the horse has escaped. But how the hell did we ever let ourselves get into this situation?
I can tell you this, fifty years ago it would have taken a herculean effort for the government to track how many boxes of macaroni you bought at half a dozen local grocery stores. Can you imagine anyone fifty years ago sitting still for the idea of such information being routinely tracked and recorded at the supermarket checkout? Like the proverbial frog in a pan of water on the stove, the heat has been turned up on us so gradually, that we never even noticed it reaching the boiling point.
Several months ago my brother got a Mobil Speed Pass. You know, a little plastic wand you hold up to the red pegasus on the side of the gas pump, more convenient even than inserting your credit card? And you should have seen the fine print that came with it. Unless you opt out, every time you use your Mobil Speed Pass, information is being gathered on you, and possibly shared.
If all this information is already available out there, then our government, awakened by the events of 9/11/01, can damn well focus its energies to track down the handful of people it really needs to be tracking down, i.e. the terrorists among us. The government doesn't need a conveniently assembled electronic dossier on each of us, including what brand of toothpaste we use to brush our teeth.
Dossiers on innocent private citizens have been abused in this country before. No reason to think it can't happen again. And no need to make it any easier for 'em.
I was recently at Temple Beth El here in the Detroit Metro area. They have there some floor tiles from a 2,000+ year old Jewish temple. They bought them from a group of Palestinian militants who were ready to blow the building up.
What does that make them?
Blackmail victims. At best.
Ah. But if you think you're negotiating with moderates in a radical government, moderates who want to re-open relations with the U.S. and try to reform the system within, and you turn out to have been a fool, you are...
A criminal?
The independent prosecutor statutes were an abomination, and Iran/Contra was nothing but a witch hunt.
One in which, by the way, over 400 indictments were thrown out--and in which over 400 of them were thrown out of court, resulted in acquittal, or were overturned on appeal. It was the longest, most expensive, and least productive independent prosecution in American history.
Just so you know.