Site Presented By
Friday, Jul 10, 2009
Dec 4, 2002 | [Read "Is Big Brother Our Only Hope Against bin Laden?]
"But despite these questions, the computer scientists also said they think of TIA as a long-term research project."
Isn't that what at least some of the scientists who participated in the Manhattan Project said at the time, only to repudiate the sentiment once the Nuclear Age was well underway?
How could we protect privacy in perpetuity? Or permanently prevent a system like TIA from being used for draconian purposes? Imagine how much more efficient Hitler could have been if he had had access to such complete data. But I forget; such a thing could never happen here, so it doesn't matter if we put the perfect mechanism for it in place. It's not like there are, or ever could be, American religious fanatics or wannabe dictators who might find such information "useful" in ways for which it was never intended. Right?
-- Ellen Lingar
I am not willing to die so that civil libertarians can protect my freedoms. In case no one has noticed, we don't live in a world of theoretical arguments. Orwell, schmorwell. Why is the totalitarian, all-knowing state the only conclusion we can envision to tighter control over personal information? Freedom has a price, all right -- absolute freedom. Get over yourselves, already.
-- Mike Patrick
I wish to point out two flaws with your article on TIA. First, what makes you think the 2003 al-Qaida training manual doesn't already contain items to defeat TIA? Your story itself suggests various things that terrorists should do in the future to make themselves more invisible (e.g., use cash more often, and buy round-trip air tickets), and more items like this are just common sense. Once TIA-defeating techniques are used by terrorists, the only purpose of TIA will be to spy on Americans, and we know from the past (Nixon's "enemies" list, COINTELPRO, etc.) that the government is not reticent to do this. Pretty soon it will be antiwar protesters and environmentalists that are targeted with TIA information.
Second, you ask, "Do we have a choice?" and you ignore the obvious choice. The real anti-terrorism policy objective of the U.S. should be to stop interfering in so many other countries' affairs and thus generating the hatred in the first place. We should begin by eliminating our reliance on imported oil, which would coincidentally postpone the global warming problem a few centuries. This is not a technological pipe dream, but something that could be achieved by transitioning the U.S. auto/truck fleet to chargeable hybrid vehicles. A hybrid that could be charged in your garage and travel off its battery for merely 20 miles would cut automobile gasoline consumption in half. Once the vehicle reaches 20 miles, the gasoline engine turns on, but running at twice the mpg of a gasoline-only car. That's a total of a factor of four in efficiency, which is more than enough to eliminate imported oil.
-- Earl Killian
Your article on Total Information Awareness suffered from one major flaw: It assumed that the purpose of the TIA system is, in fact, to catch terrorists. As a database management professional, I've never believed that such a system would be practical.
It could, however, be very effective at tracking the activity of the domestic political opposition. It probably wouldn't work for predicting terrorist attacks, but it would help to predict voting patterns. It could be a far more sophisticated system for the disenfranchisement of selected voters (à la the 2000 Florida election). And since it's all being done in secret, who'd know?
-- Jason Tilley
One problem is that the stated purpose of laws ends up not being what they are used for a few years down the road. Laws soon drift into the realm of the fascist police state. Kicking the door open with some noble purpose is the important phase, because once it is open there will be no going back to the old days when the abuses start. That's why it's so important not to allow these big brother laws to pass in the first place.
Example: In Massachusetts, a law was passed requiring the wearing of seat belts. It was said at the time that this could not be a reason for police to pull a person over. Now, a few years later, the law was changed so that the police can pull you over for no other reason than not wearing a seat belt. Other example: The RICO law. This was originally intended to be used to confiscate the property of drug kingpins. Now it is used to confiscate the boat of an average working stiff who smoked a joint -- to raise money for the police department.
And on and on. Unless you are prepared to accept the worst abuses a system like this could ever bring down on the heads of the American people, you should be very against it. It will be abused in horrible ways, we can be sure of that. And, oh yes, terrorists will strike anyway if they choose to.
-- T. Gagnon
The chances of Total Information Awareness ever achieving its goal are highly unlikely, unless you define the goal as giving the government an enormous resource to enforce its political agenda and further erode whatever protections Americans might have. Why should we listen to computer scientists, people who have their head in code all day and a fetish for technology, on what the appropriate political and social response to terrorism is?
It may seem callous, but far more people die every year from car accidents, cancer and a host of other maladies than terrorism. And I am far more concerned about statistics such that a young black male's No. 1 cause of death is being shot by another young black male. These are the issues that affect America every day, and I wonder if the Bush administration will ever use its political capital to create a positive change in America. Or if terrorism will become the next drug war, something never winnable that divides and destroys American lives.
-- Mike Andrew
What seems to be inherent in this article is that if this law can save lives, it is a good law and should be implemented. I question this assumption. We could clearly reduce the number of highway fatalities in this country by making the national speed limit 20 mph. We could reduce drunk driving in this country by allowing police to jail any suspected drunk driver for 10 years without a trial. We don't enact these laws -- not because we don't care about highway fatalities or drunk driving, but because we understand that personal freedom and civil rights are vitally important to us as well.
I don't believe that our government's plan to combat terrorism by allowing unfettered access to our personal information will be effective at all. But even if it was proved to be effective in slowing terrorism, the costs to our society and our way of life are too great. I would rather take the chance of the occasional terrorist threat than live my life in a totalitarian society. After all, even in 2001, more Americans died of choking than in terrorist attacks. Is it worth the loss of your civil rights to guard against the long-shot odds of becoming a terror victim?
-- Kimio Steinberg
Obviously, given the very grave circumstances our country faces, we can't afford to trust ourselves on any level. Data mining and the like is clearly not enough.
Let's cut to the chase and institute a foolproof, and much simpler, system: Let's kill everyone the minute they are born; that way they will never posses the capability to do anything wrong.
The idea that we can make this world safe by eradicating our civil rights is predicated upon fear. Perhaps the problem in this country is not terrorism, but an absolute and complete lack of courage on the part of our scientists and citizens.
Many brave people, over the history of this country, have bled and died for the rights that the cowards and corporate errand boys, in the current administration, would so freely give away.
Freedom in a democracy requires citizens to exercise courage and responsibility. Maybe we, as a country, should stop looking to computers and start looking at ourselves.
-- Michael Kearns
