Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Pentagon Wants a 'TiVo' to Watch You

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the i-think-the-shulmans-are-particularly-funny-this-week dept.

Privacy 256

An anonymous reader writes "Danger Room, a Wired blog, today cites a study of future electronic snooping technologies from Reuters, written by the Pentagon's Defense Science Board. More than anything, it seems these outside advisers want a surveillance system that would put Big Brother to shame, and they're looking at the commercial sector to provide it. 'The ability to record terabyte and larger databases will provide an omnipresent knowledge of the present and the past that can be used to rewind battle space observations in TiVo-like fashion and to run recorded time backwards to help identify and locate even low-level enemy forces. For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection and gain additional information by organizing and searching through archived data.'"

cancel ×

256 comments

In the United States of America... (5, Funny)

drewzhrodague (606182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232574)

In the United States of America, government TV watches YOU!

I'm sorry, I had to.

And the FDA make food eat you! (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232708)

Remind me.... who are the citizens? Are these citizens the people that love and protect liberty above all?

Re:And the FDA make food eat you! (4, Interesting)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233026)

No, the citizens hate America. The government must protect America from its anti-American citizens.

Re:And the FDA make food eat you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233386)

No, the citizens hate America. The government must protect America from its anti-American citizens.

That's a bit of a misrepresentation. It's only the Democrat-voting half of the citizenry that the government must protect America from!

Re:In the United States of America... (2, Insightful)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232752)

Nah... It's a global conspiracy to prop up the hard drive makers. On the flip side, terabyte hard drives should be cheap as hell in a few years. If consumers can produce more data than the governmnet can analyze, than everything will balance out in the end.

Re:In the United States of America... (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233334)

All your TiVo are belong to them

Re:In the United States of America... (1)

Capsaicin (412918) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233398)

You know I only took this link to reassure myself that that would indeed be the first post for this story ... anything else would have been a travesty!

Re:In the United States of America... (5, Funny)

Ankou (261125) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233506)

You know let em do it. It will be nekkid time all the time in my house if they put one in. Nothing is more of a deterant than a hairy fat guy eating cheese nekkid on the couch. Hey Uncle Sam, hope ya like what you see, wink!

Re:In the United States of America... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233772)

In the United States of America, government TV watches YOU!

You mean in Fascist America...

In Soviet Russia... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232584)

You watch TiVos

hahahahahah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232904)

way better than the other one

Re:In Soviet Russia... (1)

Serengeti (48438) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233656)

Is it sad that the Russian Reversal joke makes Russia sound normal?

Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232600)

Wouldn't it be easier to just stop:

Funding Israeli terrorism?
Manufacturing wars to establish gigantic permanent colonial military bases in other people's countries?
Supporting royal families just because we lack a modern energy policy?

In general stop being a menace to the rest of the world?

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232648)

Obviously you don't get out much (or know the first thing about history.)
You, sir, are a fucktard.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232692)

What an amazing rebuttal. With all the reference material you supplied, I'm won over to your side! Where's my M-16? I think my neighbor's a Muslim!

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1)

Zonekeeper (458060) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232830)

"Anonymous Coward"... says it all. If I was that ignorant, I'd want to remain anonymous as well. As for a rebuttal, its difficult to know where to start, since its obvious there are so many misconceptions floating around in that thing you call a "brain", a whole project would have to be defined and planned in an enterprise management system to even know where to begin.

Or as the previous poster already observed, you could just be a fucktard. Heads/Tails.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (-1, Troll)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233042)

You probably _are_ that ignorant, and you ARE anonymous. I don't know who you are. I don't even know your email address, much less name or address. If you're so proud of your opinions you're willing to identify yourself, go ahead. I want name, address, and phone number, otherwise you're just as cowardly as the poster you responded to.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (2, Insightful)

frazzydee (731240) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233184)

Oh yeah? Well I don't see you posting your full details openly on the web either. Most don't, and it's certainly not because they're cowards.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (0)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233338)

That's why I don't call people cowards for being anonymous.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233346)

1. Someone (a) posts "anonymously" [slashdot.org] .

2. Someone else (b) responds "anonymously" to that.

3. (b) gets attacked for posting anonymously, with a text that is as long as both the posts of (a) and (b) combined, but still manages to ignore the fact that (a) posted anonymously also (so jumping on (b) is silly) AND the original suggestion [slashdot.org] and the content of the replies of (a) and (b) in relation to that. In short, spam.

4. More spam???

5. Profit. :/

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233376)

If you're so proud of your opinions you're willing to identify yourself, go ahead. I want name, address, and phone number

I'll start with the name. Andres Marin.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232776)

Oh, look. It's a Israeli terrorist sympathizer!

Spying on US citizens is one option. But a much more effective and long term solution would be to:

1. Arrest all members of AIPAC(the pro-Israeli terrorism lobby) and ship them off to Guantanamo
2. Regime change in occupied Palestine and install a democratic government
3. Destruction of the Israeli WMD and other terror weapons
4. War crimes trials for those responsible for the decades long Israeli campaign of terror and ethnic cleansing

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1)

edward2020 (985450) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233294)

Unfortunately, no one cares about Palestinians except Palestinians. The US doesn't, Israel doesn't, and other Muslim nations do not. Sure, some countries are concerned about spillover (think Jordan), some countries use it as a base for propaganda (think Israel and Iran, for instance), some countries like the fact the whatever Palestine exactly is destabilizes Israel (think Egypt), and some countries use it as a stick/carrot (think the US). I'd also offer the observation that there have been more than a few nations who have enjoyed the US's presence on "their continents" (such as West Germany, South Korea, Poland (they'd still be a Soviet satellite if not for the US's presence within Europe occupying the USSR's time/resources). Another observation, your vitriolic statements only serve to put up the back of those who - apparently - you are trying to convince.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232858)

Could you be more specific?

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1)

jimmydevice (699057) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232896)

Could you explain exactly how more "specific" the OP could be?

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1)

fredrated (639554) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232974)

Specifically how is the parent a 'fucktard', i.e., please demolish their point not their person.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233258)

If the comment were taken serously then by being flippantly simplistic and offering something other than a real solution: a red herring. I imagine that's why the replier went over-the-top using "fucktard".
There is little real basis to think that acquiescing to the points made by the accused one would solve the problems attributed to the accusations, if taken as fact.

anyhow, the accused was trying to be humourous --but the attacker and others didn't get it.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232770)

Funding Israeli terrorism?

How do you sell that to the Israelis that run America?

Manufacturing wars to establish gigantic permanent colonial military bases in other people's countries?

That isn't tactically sound, the MORE bases the better for protecting oil fields.

Supporting royal families just because we lack a modern energy policy?

Then we wouldn't have any energy... so, I guess not! Though you sort of answered your own question on that.

In general stop being a menace to the rest of the world?

Rest of the world sucks too!

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233206)

How do you sell that to the Israelis that run America?

Wait, I thought it was the Saudi's who were running America? Or was that last weeks bullshit meme that you guys were peddling?

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233282)

The Saudi's are a disinfo tactic used to distract from the ZOG.

Do you know how much profit... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232836)

... those activities are making for those in power?

I don't either, but I bet it is a large positive number.

So, the answer is no. No, it won't be easier to just stop.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (5, Funny)

Hotawa Hawk-eye (976755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232912)

Yes, but think of the defense contractors that contribute heavily to both political parties! Won't someone think of the defense contractors?

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233060)

Brilliant.

But that would avert our plan for endless war. [discovery.com]

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233118)

Ahh but that'd make too much sense!

We could grow hemp to make paper and cardboard instead of destroying rain forests, but no, that'd be too difficult.

We could introduce a host of new technologies into the automotive industry that would increase the mileage of automobiles by up to 50%, such as GEET's and better engines with fewer moving parts, but then what would happen to the ass hats making money off of the patents?

We could build a bunch of nuclear reactors to fuel energy-distribution technologies that would revolutionize the world for a fraction of the cost of the Iraq War.

We could introduce Organics recycling into urban neighborhoods, cutting the amount of garbage going into dumps by over half.

We could stop poisoning ourselves with floride, mercury, lead, aluminum and arsenic.

The entire pharmaceutical industry could decide to stop fucking everyone over and make the secrets of real whole health known. Simple cures for cancer, diabetics, and other diseases are well known to naturopaths.

And on, and on, and on.

The problem is money; we have a banking system which is designed to propagate a predatory cutthroat society.

In reality, I think the only solution is an army of 50 cal sniper rifle toting fuckers who take bad people out with extreme prejudice.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233370)

Hmmm.

Insightful?

This silly-ass nonsense is tagged *insightful*?

Slashdot. Home of utterly idiotic assholes.

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (0)

sabernet (751826) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233510)

Such a very insightful post polluted by such moronic replies....sigh

But I agree entirely. All this "kill all dem terre-or-wrists" mentality is enough to make me throw up. Terrorists have causes or at least a predisposition of animosity towards their target fueled by fanatics. Take those causes away(or at least minimize them) and the terrorist count goes down. Or at least take away their reasons for animosity. If the children grow up without having their dads blown up by American arms or their resources stripped by foreign companies, they will follow their fanatics with far more reluctance.

You can never have pure security. All you can do is the best security you can manage without infringing on the freedom of your populace.

To quote one of your previous and wiser presidents:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safet"

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (1, Informative)

sabernet (751826) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233526)

Dammit, should have used the preview button.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Re:Wouldn't It Be Easier Just To... (2, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233728)

Terrorists have causes or at least a predisposition of animosity towards their target fueled by fanatics. Take those causes away(or at least minimize them) and the terrorist count goes down.

Yeah. Ask Neville Chamberlain about that one.

News flash: The United States could declare open season on Israel, withdraw from all Middle Eastern bases and force all American oil companies out of the Middle East, and the terrorists would not only not quit, they'd take it as a sign that their tactics were working and they'd redouble their efforts.

I'm no fan of Bush or his policies, but despite their idiocy, they aren't nearly as stupid as appeasement.

BTW, Ben Franklin was never president.

Where is this service provided? (3, Funny)

ATAMAH (578546) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232602)

Geographically, would it be in Soviet Russia, by any chance?

I for one... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232612)

...Welcome our new Hooveristic overlords.

On a serious note, since when as an analytical, scientific approach worked in catching bad guys. It's like C-3PO consistently panicking about the odds of a disaster happening while everybody else ( who isn't a robot ) uses their common sense and rationality without panicking, to get them through.

We all know that people are unpredictable. You can't apply scientific rationale to people.

Just my two cents.

Re:I for one... (4, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232758)

"For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection and gain additional information by organizing and searching through archived data."

No more "Hooveristic" than a camera at the local Quickie Mart. An action is filmed, the data trail is followed backwards until something useful is found.

"We all know that people are unpredictable. You can't apply scientific rationale to people."

This is not about predicting them, it is about recording what is done in public space and using it to trace activities back to source.

Re:I for one... (2, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233036)

"No more "Hooveristic" than a camera at the local Quickie Mart. An action is filmed, the data trail is followed backwards until something useful is found."

You're telling me that every video camera at every little Quickie Mart has a wire leading back directly to the Pentagon where they have full DVR capabilities?

This is entirely different than a Quickie Mart. This is real-time wide-area surveillance capabilities.

Suppose you had an 'enemies' list and had a plot to disappear each of them in the course of one day. You could have goons following everyone on the list, or you could just have people in the pentagon watching video cameras where your 'enemies' are known to go on their daily routine. As soon as you see the 'enemy' appear on screen, call your goon and have them jump out of hiding and nab the 'enemy'.

Re:I for one... (1)

jeevesbond (1066726) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233416)

I believe the correct 'Patriot Act' compliant term you're looking for is: 'Enemy Combatant'.

The Goons will watch 'enemy combatants' go on their daily routine. As soon as the 'enemy combatants' appear, the goons nab them.

This is reminiscent of a South Park episode. The one where the kids go shooting with Jimbo and Ned [spscriptorium.com] . The goons just have to wait until the 'enemy combatant' appears on screen, then shout: 'By God, it's coming right for us!' and nab them (even if they're just sitting on their arses watching TV). See the 'it's coming right for us!' bit turns an everyday person into an 'enemy combatant'--muahahaha!

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233204)

For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection and gain additional information by organizing and searching through archived data.

Translation: "after an embarrassing story hits the headlines, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follow the reporter back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection and gain additional information by organizing and searching through archived data."

Re:I for one... (1)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232864)

of course people are predictable... individuals and groups...

at the individual level, lets say for me, rudimetary surveilance would have me leaving for work M-F at 8:30 AM and returning shortly after 5:00 pm. Therefore, one could easily extrapolate that tomorrow, i'll be on the same schedule. Further, if someone tracked me, they'ed see that each morning i go to starbucks. though the drinks vary, the schedule is the same...

likewise in groups. with a large enough group, though you won't necessarily be able to predict behavior at the individual level, with past examples, you should be able to predict behavior at the group level; ask anyone in marketing.

Re:I for one... (1)

Merkwurdigeliebe (1046824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233390)

Of course people are predicatable. Life is generally quite routine and quotidian. There should be no surprise in that. However, what is not predictable are those extraordinary things in life. Can one predict when a person might take the scenic way home? Can it be predicted when (or even why) someone might cheat on their lover or business partner? It's the extraordinary things that are almost by definition unpredictable without psychological insight.

Re:I for one... (1)

Kandenshi (832555) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232916)

I'm somewhat disturbed to hear that the past few years of reading scientific journal articles have been for naught.

Psychology(the science of people's behaviour) is a joke? Shame that =( All those millions upon millions of dollars spent on it's study, and only NOW do we learn that "You can't apply scientific rationale to people."

Well crap.

Unless you aren't absolutely sure? Is there any chance that one can apply the scientific method to the behaviour of individuals and groups, and build models that predict future behaviour in a probabilistic way?

The only reason I'm not scared.. (4, Insightful)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232620)

The only reason this doesn't scare me is that I'm supremely confident that government red tape, massive budgetary blow outs and vendor selection based purely on campaign contributions will never result in a workable system.

Re:The only reason I'm not scared.. (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232678)

I agree - it's clearly beyond the scope of what the current administration can offer. Besides, they only have two years to get it done- in the next election, I foresee even more Republicans getting their walking papers. Ain't gonna happen. And if it does, it's time for recalls. Congress STILL controls the funding.

Re:The only reason I'm not scared.. (1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233162)

Controls the funding?

What kind of black budget can you run on $12 Billion? [freemarketnews.com]

Or the $3 TRILLION [onlinejournal.com] , that went "missing" earlier on Rumsfeld's watch?

No. Nobody makes a "mistake" or has an "accident" in "misplacing" billions or trillions. This is being used against the American people by their supposed agencies, like a gun to the head.

As for Congress - all the Senators are Caesar's horse [classicalvalues.com] .

Re:The only reason I'm not scared.. (1)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233046)

You have been flagged, and entered into the dangerous persons databa---

waitaminit... I've got to go get a blow job from an Ethel Merman impersonator, and call my Lockheed-Martin handler.

Re:The only reason I'm not scared.. (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233152)

Not only the reasons that you name, but once it is decided to let the government do this, there will be every reason for multiple groups to hack that system. Hacking would be an activity that is not monitored by such a system, so it would take Orwell's worst nightmare to protect it from hackers. Just think of the number of groups that would have a vested interest in controlling or hacking such a data system. My bet is that within months of being put into production it would be owned by a very well financed paramilitary group.

Re:The only reason I'm not scared.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233336)

Information Transit got the wrong man. I got the *right* man. The wrong one was delivered to me as the right man, I accepted him on good faith as the right man. Was I wrong? [imdb.com]

Re:The only reason I'm not scared.. (3, Interesting)

Kisil (900936) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233454)

I think you're partly right - there will likely not be a workable system.

Unfortunately, there will very likely be a system that partly works. Massive amounts of data will be collected, but processing will not be intelligent enough to translate this into real results in crime-fighting. Any data mining will result in many more false positives than actual results and waste government agents' time, which could otherwise be spent actually tracking down criminals (or terrorists.) Meanwhile, no thought will be given to privacy issues, resulting in tons of priviledged information being easily available to all the wrong people.

In a nice worst-case scenario, security failures could allow outsiders to change the govenment's record of the past.

I really do wish your remark were fully correct.

Re:The only reason I'm not scared.. (1)

Bios_Hakr (68586) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233570)

You know, I'm sure Mr. Buttle thought the same thing.

Neoconned alert! (4, Interesting)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232630)

will provide an omnipresent knowledge of the present and the past

Does the mindset of whoever wrote this creep you out too? It isn't about being religeous - it's about being Gods themselves and making you worship them.

Paperclip2? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232672)

Sounds like the US government allowed the Stasi into the US and gave them control of the citizen monitoring project?

Re:Paperclip2? (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233096)

Replace STASI with MOSSAD, and you'd be close...

This is military procurement-turn down your alarms (4, Insightful)

Merkwurdigeliebe (1046824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232674)

So it well seems it's intended for military deployment to combat assymetric (and urban) warfare. That is to say to enable the military to seek out the offending insurgent/combatant after a martial event. When your local constable gets interested in this technology then it'll be time for you to worry. In the meantime keep an eye on the developments, but don't be alarmed just yet.

Re:This is military procurement-turn down your ala (4, Insightful)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232964)

That kind of asymmetric warfare is what citizens would do against a repressive state regime.

Re:This is military procurement-turn down your ala (1)

Merkwurdigeliebe (1046824) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233330)

That kind of asymmetric warfare is what citizens would do against a repressive state regime.
What does that explain? Repressive governments use any and all tools and methodologies to repress their populace. By your logic, you should be alarmed at the existence of the military because in their armory they have a set of weapons that matches that which repressive regimes have in their armories.
It's not the existence of weapons and methodologies that are cause for alarm, it's the application and usage and the willingness to make use of them in non-martial times.

I'm not worried about the LOCAL cops. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232966)

I'm worried about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT having this capability. The local cops are local people with local knowledge and local families.

If this is developed for use on the battlefield, it WILL be available to monitor us. Databases don't care whether it's the USofA or not. Cameras don't understand Freedom.

The only thing that would prevent it being deployed in our country is the good will and honest nature of our politicians. They'd be testing it on us before it made it to the military.

A shame (5, Funny)

Chairboy (88841) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232688)

It's a shame, if they had chosen ReplayTV instead, they could automatically skip commercials.

Pointless. (4, Insightful)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232724)

For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source
Until you realise the source is in a rural area 50 miles past the first camera to see it.

"Anti-terrorism" cameras will not stop suicide bombers, nor will they even deter them. They're completely and utterly useless for their stated purpose, which means the government probably has no intention of using them for their stated purpose.

Re:Pointless. (2, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232822)

Did you even bother to RTFA or did you just copy a random blurb? All this initiative is about is better ways to analyze intel after a battle or attack. It's not about 'anti-terrorism cameras'. Either you didn't pay attention to much of the article, you have your own agenda to push, or you're daft.

Re:Pointless. (5, Insightful)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233596)

How are you going to be able to run surveillance backward from a car bomb detonating to the origin point of the bombers -- or forward, following them to where they're hiding -- without a pervasive net of surveillance? And once you have the capacity to do this in a hostile environment, where you can assume that the opposing forces will place a priority on disabling the surveillance system, it's no stretch at all, given the track record of the Heimatsicherheitsdienst, to see the government deploying these systems in the US for our 'protection', where the populace would have much less incentive to disable surveillance (after all, if you don't have anything to hide, why would you object to someone watching you?) -- particularly since this link [villagevoice.com] in TFA, where it's specifically stated "The primary application is for homeland security"; you might want to try reading more deeply than just a light scan of the first few paragraphs. The potential of this technology reminds me strongly of David Drake's dystopian story collection Lacey and His Friends [amazon.com] , written back in the '70s.

Re:Pointless. (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232852)

Think satalite feeds.

I think maybe someone high up in "homeland security" watched ghost in the shell SAC and thought "if only we had those tools".

Re:Pointless. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232914)

However, using another example, after a anonymous insider leaked some documents to the journalist about a big scandal, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the journalist back to the insider

Now that will effectively stop and deter whistleblowers and insider leaks... Umm... one wonders how the system is intended to be used.

Excellent (4, Insightful)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232772)

The top priority needs to be setting up these systems inside the White House and the Pentagon. Then the next time they blunder into a quagmire like this, we can scan the databases and quickly find out exactly who needs to be held accountable. Then the problem can be rectified: "It looks like we're going to have to dock your paychecks for a total of $5.0e11."

Re:Excellent (1)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232958)

Ya, wouldnt it be nice to record politicians, cops, and other government officials 24/7 (or at least while theyre working)? It would really cut down on corruption. Dont hold your breath though.

America:Bringing -F-r-e-e-d-o-m-F-r-o-m- Car Bombs (1, Informative)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232778)

For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection and gain additional information by organizing and searching through archived data.

The irony being that the vast majority of car bombs reported in the media these days are in the last place these very same people "improved." Indeed they are a direct consequence of that improving.

Those that don't study history are doomed to repeat it. It's got to be even more embarassing when you created that screwed up history and prove to the world you still haven't learned.

headline is misleading; turn down the alarms (5, Insightful)

finlandia1869 (1001985) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232792)

See the word "battlespace" in the description - that's DoD-ese for "battleground." They're talking about being able to go back and rapidly review/search recordings from satellites and other sensors monitoring combat zones. It's a very good idea - if you could track a car back to a house, you can then see who went in a out, and so forth. You could backtrack a small boat coming out of a sheltered hiding spot, and so forth. It's about time someone thought of this, frankly.

This isn't domestic surveillance that they're talking about.

Re:headline is misleading; turn down the alarms (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232920)

It is to the Iraqis.

Re:headline is misleading; turn down the alarms (1)

Shihar (153932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233108)

If Iraqis are willing to turn to racist ethnic militias to keep the their rival racist militias from killing them, I bet they could tolerate the invasion of privacy of a few cameras.

Re:headline is misleading; turn down the alarms (5, Insightful)

Teddy Beartuzzi (727169) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233064)

This isn't domestic surveillance that they're talking about.

Yet.

It takes time for military developments to work their way into the private sector.

Re:headline is misleading; turn down the alarms (1)

sehlat (180760) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233476)

I see the word "battlespace." The problem is that all technologies, without exception, get their "usage ranges" expanded. Who would have envisioned, for example, an online forum where computer and other techs can swap news and opinions, when the internet was first being developed?

Sooner or later, there will at least be a proposal for a "copspace."

Re:headline is misleading; turn down the alarms (1)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233814)

This isn't domestic surveillance that they're talking about.

As someone who does not live in the U.S., this doesn't calm me one little bit.

- RG>

Nothing new here (2, Funny)

The Dobber (576407) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232802)


Jack Bauer and his pals at CTU have been Tivo'ing us for at least six seasons.

But.... (4, Insightful)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232816)

What is supposed to happen, actually? Are we going to have cameras follow every person, 24/7? That means someone to study that footage, right? And someone to study the footage of them studying the footage of you? And....on and on.

It is clear such clinical monitoring would break down under its own weight - speculative follow-thru says the most logical approach is to give every camera the autonomous ability to decide if something you've done warrants being flagged. Happen in practice? Not hardly.

Back track from the scene of a car bomb explosion? How many cameras are you using? One or several? If several, where are they located in relation to the car? Points of the compass? Sure, if you know to watch the car from the beginning, in which case there is no point in following the arrow of time back to the start, right?

While THX1138 hinted at this and other B'Brother style tactics, it also tried to show why such a system simply isn't feasible. There are just too many ways of being defined as outside the box in terms of what such a system could handle. All it takes is one exception, and the system is no longer worth the time it took to draw up the prototype.

Re:But.... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232872)

RTFA and answer your own questions, Einstein.

24 (2, Insightful)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232982)

What is supposed to happen, actually? Are we going to have cameras follow every person, 24/7? That means someone to study that footage, right? And someone to study the footage of them studying the footage of you? And....on and on.

They arent suggesting watching everyone. They want to record everything, then when something happens, rewind and then watch the given location. We obviously dont have the man power to watch everyone, but when computers can do it for us....

Um, sensationalism anyone? (3, Interesting)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232840)

The title of this article is totally off. This is nothing more than a way to analyze battlefield intel better. It's got nothing to do with any kind of surveillance programs or anything other than being able to better catagorize threats and analyze data after a conflict.

This gives a whole new meaning to 'knee jerk reaction'.

Just use the DMCA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18232918)

I dont see the problem, just start wearing a shirt with some text or image that you own the copyright to. Then, since any reproduction of the image (through a surveillance camera for instance) is illegally duplicating a copyrighted work, just send them a DMCA notice. Either the surveillance loses or the DMCA loses - they can't both win!

24 (2, Interesting)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232928)

Someones been watching too much 24. I dont believe the Uk even records every camera for much time.. Lets assume you use 350mb an hour to store your video, not the best but acceptable quality.

24 X 350 = 8400 = 8.4 GB a day

1000 cameras x 8.4 GB = 8.4 TB a day

Hmm, on second thought this seems possible.

We do it already (2, Interesting)

dotmax (642602) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232950)

If i were trying to fight the Iraqi (or other) insurgency i sure as hell would want a tool like this.

W/o getting into a moralistic analysis, it's clear that while such monitoring is not a panacea, it would at least raise the bar for the insurgents, and increase their exposure to OPSEC fubars.

We do this already in a less-than-coordinated fashion in the US. The police regularly survey all the security camera tapes in the area of crimes, esp. murders, to try to create a gestalt of the crime scene area. Works pretty good is some cases, has bagged more than a couple of murderers and hit and run drivers.

Bon Chance.

Makes sense to me... (1)

gadzook33 (740455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18232998)

I mean, say what you will about big brother but this is the next logical step for satellite based intelligence. We've got some impressive satellites up there already watching "places of interest" around the world. You want them to just take stills? Or to throw away that data when they're done with it? Of course not, that would be an ineffectual intelligence mechanism (god forbid). I'm afraid this technology is inevitable. In fact, I'd be very surprised if they're not already doing it to some extent.

Think about how much hard drive space costs. (1)

Musashi Miyamoto (662091) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233024)

I've been thinking about this for a little while. It currently would only cost on the order of tens of millions of dollars to record EVERY phone call made in the United States. It is totally possible that the NSA is ALREADY recording every single call we make, which would allow them to do retroactive surveillance just like this.

A single 300 GB hard drive (like the one I bought new for $60) can record around 10 years of continuous phone conversations.

the sky is falling! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233142)

according to the average fucktard on here we were going to be in shakles and slaving for the man by now.
 
you fucktards make me laugh.

Oh, come on... (1)

kermit1221 (75994) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233154)

Fox invented this six freakin years ago.

Bill: Can you zoom in on this area right here?
Chloe: *clickity clickity clickity*
Jack (on cellphone): Can you send that to my PDA?
Chloe: Well you'll just have to wait. I have to go to the server room to clear a socket.

Perfect Timing (0)

MattPat (852615) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233172)

Believe it or not, this news story comes in just as I am writing an essay that poses the question: who is right about what will destroy American society, Aldous Huxley or George Orwell?

Thank you, Slashdot! Luckily, I had already picked Orwell. ;)

We think he has it... (1)

kermit1221 (75994) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233180)

But all we've ascertained from satellite photos is that it's not on the roof!

In Soviet Russia... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233290)

In Soviet Russia, a 'TiVo' wants you to watch the Pentagon!

damn (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233300)

soon i wont have any electronic left that is not spying on me, jeeeze why would the government want to watch me in the privacy of my own home, is watching me scratch my ass while i walk around in my underwear - grazing for food in the kitchen that interesting???

Here's an idea... (1)

Adeptus_Luminati (634274) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233312)

Why doesn't the USA just launch 5100 satellites that orbit the Earth just above the USA. Roughly 100 satellites per State - is that enough to record everything going on 24/7 when the weather is good? Then beam the info in real time to at least 2 data centres per State wherein the NSA/Homeland security ties in and can play back anything on their 'little' Tivo network.

Remind me to buy some stock in Seagate if this thing ever goes through.

Adeptus.

Fantasy (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233380)

Right now the US has the highest technology, most detailed surveillance, and most money. Yet we are tricked into believing false intelligence by the allegedly backwards countries of N. Korea and Iraq. The low tech Iraqi's regularly destroy our truck and planes, killing thousands of US citizens, all without a technological infrastructure. This proves one again that people and ingenuity can at least significantly annoy the high tech automatic systems. Dependence on automated system merely gives us the illusion of security, and encourages to take increasingly contraindicated risks, as is shown by our current war on two front, soon to be three or four.

For example, after a car bomb detonates, one would have the ability to play high-resolution data backward in time to follows the vehicle back to the source, and then use that knowledge to focus collection

Such reliance on automated intelligence, and the false sense of security, is shown in the above quote. There are any number of ways to use the system against the government. Leave the car in a location for a different random locations over a number of weeks. Find the blind spot in the system and switch cars. Perhaps you make it appear that the car came from an embassy. It would not be so hard to do. Homeland security would be running around chasing false leads while the real terrorist are free to plan another event.

Sometimes I hear good thing from the Bush administration, things like the importance of humint, but then I hear something like this and my faith falls back to zero.

And you still think the world ideal is democracy ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18233452)

Total tyranny , total control.
Thats what they want,
the people who want to own the world and
want everyone to be their slaves.

did i (1)

kahrytan (913147) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233662)


  I think I am having a Deja Vu [wikipedia.org] moment here. Anyone else get the same feeling?

Tin Foil Hats for sale (3, Funny)

pagerwho (1071772) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233686)

I have a special on tin foil hats. Buy two and I'll throw in a free government conspiracy guide free. Buy four and you'll get the government conspiracy guide, AND the book "UFO's Exist" for the low, low price of $19.95 plus shipping and handling. In other news, Bush finally figured out what a pentagon was.

Moo (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18233744)

it seems these outside advisers want a surveillance system that would put Big Brother to shame

Huh? Why would it put them to shame? This is what they want.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...