This may be Orwell's 1984 in spades.

[allthumbs]

Super Computer Spys on Americans

 

I think I've come to terms with the idea that our open, anonymous society is one of the main weapons terrorists have. When our enemies are openly opposing us and "out there", we don't need this type of weapon. When they are among us and demonstrably so, then we do.

 

I think something like this can work if we plan it out ahead of time, discuss the limitations on its operation, the uses to which data can be put that is not about terror, etc. Is it troubling? Sure. So is the idea of poisoning my water supply. When the enemy will stop at nothing, neither should we.

 

In the past, I've been against measures targeted toward specific groups just because of their race or ethnic origin. I still am, if the targeting is solely on the basis of perceived ethnicity or race. But I've supported developing profiles of terrorists that have included these factors since so far, our enemies haven't been Norwegians, for example. Part of my opposition has to do with our history with targeted investigations and part of it has to do with my belief that Al Qaeda has support in non-Middle Eastern populations and we would end up missing a lot of terrorists by focusing only on one group.

 

But this weapon seems to be designed to work sort of like a "super profiler", taking into account potentially many more factors in the effort. It stands to be a lot more effective but pretty much the same process as a policeman with a profile sheet, so I think I can support it.

 

I am cautious, but erring on the side of security, when the price of erring on the other side is pretty high, is preferred. We'd need some pretty clear ground rules, but I think that this is something I could support, under the right conditions.

 

trask

 

[ 11-25-2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: trask ]

[salbrecher]

Is 1084 anything like 1984?

[allthumbs]

Oops

[Rick_Sharpless]

If that's what our society becomes have not the terrorists won? Is the country that felon poindexter envisions one worth living in and protecting?

 

Thes people scare me a lot more than the thugs of al-qaeda and company

[Fence_Sitter]

no search warrants? dont like the sound of that? that means if you talk to your buddy about B.C.'s finest, yopu will have teh Po-Po busting down your door before you hit send... i'm out...have you ever seen brazil(the movie)? yeah i think i'll pass...

[MtnGoat]

I have difficulty seeing how anyone can expect to keep any secrets in an increasingly netoworked and wired society anyway. IMO it will take a sea change of attitudes about privacy, because wether the govt does it or buisness does it or private citizens do it, personal info will become nearly impossible to protect.

 

Really to me the only option may be to go entirely the other way, and make sure you can watch the watchers, and in addition have a serious debate about how much control you intend to exert over your fellow citizens in the first place. Increasingly linked info and databases are a given, and it will only get worse. If we make sure this data cannot be used against people by making permanent protections agaisnt certain encroachments, it may be simpler than trying to protect the data itself.

 

Just some thoughts. the tide is irreversible IMO and we'll need to deal with it in new ways instead of trying to protect what may well be unprotectable. If we go to a cashless society, every single transactions will be trackable for example, and the only way to insure freedom in that environment is to protect the uses of the transactions instead of trying to keep them secret. The problem to me is not that the data is not secret, but that it can be used agaisnt you. Orwells world was bad not because of what was known, IMO, but because of how that knowledge was used for control.

 

If people can resist their overwhelming urge to use each other for their own ends, something we see repeatedly in politics, how much you know about someone is useless.

 

[ 11-25-2002, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: MtnGoat ]

[allthumbs]

Recent Senate Votes

 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 - Vote Passed (90-9, 1 Not Voting)

 

Senate passage of this bill clears the path for the creation of the cabinet-level Homeland Security Department.

 

Sen. Patty Murray voted YES

Sen. Maria Cantwell voted YES

 

Sen. Strom Thurmond’s (R-SC) final request as his 48-year career in the Senate came to a close, was for the chamber to confirm U.S. District Court Judge Dennis Shedd to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

Sen. Patty Murray voted NO

Sen. Maria Cantwell voted NO

 

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 - Vote Passed (86-11, 3 Not Voting)

 

The Senate gave final approval to this bill that would help the insurance industry absorb the blow from a terrorist attack.

 

Sen. Patty Murray voted YES

Sen. Maria Cantwell voted YES

[slothrop]

I'd rather die in a free, open society than suffer under the autocracy of an omnipotent Big Brother regime.

 

The Total Information Awareness program reminds me of the actions of the Stasi in East Germany as late as the 1980s. Everyone in the DDR had a dossier, and once the files were released after German reunification, thousands of people found out that their neighbors, family members, husbands, wives, and friends had ratted them out to the government's spies. Some people refused to look at their files for fear of discovering such betrayals.

[iain]

 

get a mac and all your 1984 probs will be solved.

[j_b]

quote:

---

I am cautious, but erring on the side of security

---

yeah right, we could not even get you to agree to register your guns but now your reasonable self thinks systematic profiling is in order ....

[sexual_chocolate]

Hitler disarmed the German population, let's not forget.

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by sexual chocolate:

Hitler disarmed the German population, let's not forget.

---

So did Stalin...fuckin' commie.

[rbw1966]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sexual chocolate:

Hitler disarmed the German population, let's not forget.

---

So did Stalin...fuckin' commie.

---

How did Stalin disarm the German population?

[Greg_W]

quote:

---

Originally posted by rbw1966:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sexual chocolate:

Hitler disarmed the German population, let's not forget.

---

So did Stalin...fuckin' commie.

---

How did Stalin disarm the German population?

---

Sorry, for those who lack the ability to extrapolate thought...Stalin disarmed the Soviet people. He's still a fuckin' commie.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Isn't Stalin dead, old chap?

[rbw1966]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greg W:

Sorry, for those who lack the ability to extrapolate thought...Stalin disarmed the Soviet people. He's still a fuckin' commie.[/QB]

---

For those who lack the ability to write clearly: