Post #62,980
11/14/02 11:43:13 PM
|
Link to DARPA IAO here.
[link|http://www.darpa.mil/iao/|Here]. IAO, like the rest of DARPA, funds research programs. [link|http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm|TIA] is Poindexter's program that seems to be generating all the buzz. Program Objective:
The Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is a FY02 new-start program. The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists \ufffd and decipher their plans \ufffd and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts. To that end, the TIA program objective is to create a counter-terrorism information system that: (1) increases information coverage by an order of magnitude, and affords easy future scaling; (2) provides focused warnings within an hour after a triggering event occurs or an evidence threshold is passed; (3) can automatically queue analysts based on partial pattern matches and has patterns that cover 90% of all previously known foreign terrorist attacks; and, (4) supports collaboration, analytical reasoning and information sharing so that analysts can hypothesize, test and propose theories and mitigating strategies about possible futures, so decision-makers can effectively evaluate the impact of current or future policies and prospective courses of action. Emphasis added. It seems like reasonable research to me. How the research is applied is a different matter. That's something that will be decided by lawmakers - not DARPA. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #63,015
11/15/02 9:58:58 AM
|
Don't You Get It?
Loss of liberty is almost never an overnight thing - it happens adiabatically, by countless small, "reasonable" sounding steps that add up to a very unreasonable police state. Is that what you want?
I can only conclude that most people DO want a police state.
-drl
|
Post #63,135
11/15/02 6:24:21 PM
|
*Brevity* AND Physics-concept Award
|
Post #63,165
11/15/02 10:13:24 PM
|
"Is that what you want?" No. Wasn't I clear?
You don't seem to understand the point I was trying to make.
To reiterate:
DARPA isn't the problem. DARPA is a research funding agency. It doesn't do deployment.
Poindexter isn't the problem. He's heading a research program. He doesn't have anything to do with deployment.
The research that Poindexter's funding isn't the problem. The problem is the way the research is used. The research could be used for good or for ill.
How the research is used depends on things out of DARPA's and Poindexter's hands. It depends on Congress and the President. If you're concerned about the way TIA might be used, or think that TIA shouldn't be funded, then you should direct those concerns toward your Representative, Senator and the President. They're the ones who'll determine what, if anything, is done with it - not Poindexter.
Clearer?
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #63,171
11/15/02 11:01:34 PM
|
Translation:
A bunch of people...
individually....
take a small step towards Fascism...
and no SINGLE person is responsible for the outcome.
Rather than that, let's just fight it NOW.
We have US citizens in custody NOW without any of their basic Rights.
You CANNOT protect yourself by SURRENDERING your FREEDOMS.
No matter HOW NICE the rationals may be phrased.
Freedom is NOT free.
|
Post #63,175
11/16/02 12:08:10 AM
|
Non sequitur.
|
Post #63,279
11/16/02 6:17:21 PM
|
Mostly wrong
DARPA isn't the problem, I agree with you there.
Poindexter is a problem. He has a history of devoting resources to covert operations against the will of Congress. I am not comfortable having him in that position because I believe he will abuse his position.
The research that Poindexter is funding is a problem. It is research that is intended for specific uses, and with Poindexter there, those uses are likely to be things that I do not want to see.
Claiming that the use of the research is used is in the hands of Congress and the President is also wrong. Given Poindexter's convictions, we can assume that Congress won't necessarily have much of a say. Depending on what you believe about the past, Poindexter may or may not respect the wishes of the President. In Iran-Contra Reagan claimed to not know anything - in which case Poindexter was acting on his own based on what he thought that the President wanted. Alternately one can believe that that was a lie, and Poindexter did carry out the wishes of the President - in the same way that Nixon's men carried out his wishes.
My personal belief is that Poindexter is there as a point man for the interests of people who back the Bush family and the Repulicans in general. These are not people who I believe care about democracy, and they do not represent my interests as an American. To me this is a definite problem.
Clear enough?
Regards,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #63,300
11/16/02 8:11:03 PM
|
I see, but I disagree.
Poindexter is a problem. He has a history of devoting resources to covert operations against the will of Congress. I am not comfortable having him in that position because I believe he will abuse his position.
The research that Poindexter is funding is a problem. It is research that is intended for specific uses, and with Poindexter there, those uses are likely to be things that I do not want to see.
Claiming that the use of the research is used is in the hands of Congress and the President is also wrong. Given Poindexter's convictions, we can assume that Congress won't necessarily have much of a say. Taking your comments from the top: 1. Re: Poindexter in charge: So [link|http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm|TIA] wouldn't be a problem if, say, Larry Lessig was in charge? I don't think you really believe that. 2. DARPA is very different from the White House. DARPA funds research. That's all they do. They have no say on policy. The National Security Adviser, Poindexter's previous job, has a policy mandate. Poindexter at DARPA has absolutely no say on what the DOD or any other organization deploys. 3. Congress controls DARPA's budget. [link|http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/FY03BudEst.pdf|2003 DARPA Request (373 page PDF)]. "These technologies will be tested and integrated into the Total Information Awareness (TIA) System funded in PE 0603760E, Project CCC-01." CCC-01 is described starting on page 267 of the PDF. Its budget is $76.6 M in FY 2003 (which started in October). Congress can take this money away, or the President can modify the request. Don't let the fact that you don't like Poindexter's past get in the way of the fact that the best way to fight TIA is by letting Congress and the President know. In other words, don't shoot the messenger. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #63,309
11/16/02 8:34:19 PM
|
I don't think you read closely enough...
[...] So [link|http://www.darpa.mil/iao/TIASystems.htm|TIA] wouldn't be a problem if, say, Larry Lessig was in charge? I don't think you really believe that. If Lessig was in charge I would have one less problem than I do now. He is not my only objection. Nor did I indicate so. 2. DARPA is very different from the White House. DARPA funds research. That's all they do. They have no say on policy. The National Security Adviser, Poindexter's previous job, has a policy mandate. Poindexter at DARPA has absolutely no say on what the DOD or any other organization deploys. Didn't I say that the one thing listed that was not a problem for me was DARPA? And note that while Poindexter may have no say on what others do, he does have the ability to assist them in doing what they want to do that I dislike. He also has the ability to influence which policy items will become priorities to focus on, and which will be back-burnered. 3. Congress controls DARPA's budget. [link|http://www.darpa.mil/body/pdf/FY03BudEst.pdf|2003 DARPA Request (373 page PDF)]. "These technologies will be tested and integrated into the Total Information Awareness (TIA) System funded in PE 0603760E, Project CCC-01." CCC-01 is described starting on page 267 of the PDF. Its budget is $76.6 M in FY 2003 (which started in October). Congress can take this money away, or the President can modify the request. Poindexter has proven capable in the past of finding innovative ways to get funding for things that Congress has decided should not be funded. That is, in fact, the entire point of the previous legal proceedings against him. Don't let the fact that you don't like Poindexter's past get in the way of the fact that the best way to fight TIA is by letting Congress and the President know. In other words, don't shoot the messenger. This is relevant because...? The question was whether I saw problems with everything listed, and not what the best way to address said problems would be. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
|
Post #63,030
11/15/02 10:47:17 AM
|
how many program objectives have you seen in IT
that in no way match the final product?
thanx,
bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic." Correction: All that can be achieved with 51 percent of the voters!" Ilanna Mercer
|
