Beta

×

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!

'War on Terror' Allies Form Information Consortium

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the absolutely-nothing-about-this-sounds-james-bondian dept.

Government 139

Wowsers writes us with a story from The Guardian about FBI interest in connectivity between its own database resources and those abroad. It's spearheading a program labeled 'Server in the Sky', meant to coordinate the police forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand to better fight international crime/terrorist groups. The group is calling itself the International Information Consortium. "Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency has been the lead body for the FBI project because it is responsible for IDENT1, the UK database holding 7m sets of fingerprints and other biometric details used by police forces to search for matches from scenes of crimes. Many of the prints are either from a person with no criminal record, or have yet to be matched to a named individual. IDENT1 was built by the computer technology arm of the US defence company Northrop Grumman. In future it is expected to hold palm prints, facial images and video sequences."

cancel ×

139 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Server in the Sky? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049298)

Honestly. Wtf? Server in the Sky? That cannot be serious.

I can't think of a name more likely to inspire fear/conspiracy theories. Why not call it the Big Brother Server? Or the Stalin Server? Or the Anal Rapist server?

'night all - enough scotchx for me :-)

Re:Server in the Sky? (4, Funny)

Broken Toys (1198853) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049464)

Why not call it Skynet and just accept the inevitable?

Re:Server in the Sky? (2, Informative)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049746)

That name was already taken [www.mod.uk] .

Re:Server in the Sky? (2, Interesting)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051974)

So we have the program "Star Wars" and now we have "Skynet".
Before you know it, they will want to 'recycle' people when they turn 30 and
there will probably be a 'Green' company to provide high energy biscuits to people and the company name will be "The Soylent Biscuit Company".

Has imagination left mankind?

Re:Server in the Sky? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049470)

Oh, just "Nanny State Server" will do.
People seem relaxed about the bread, circuses, and state-run services.
Yet when the logical law-enforcement applications of state control come along, up go the hackles, revealing velveteen shackles, while the bureaucratic overlord quietly cackles.

Re:Server in the Sky? (3, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049564)

Sure, why NOT call it "Server in the Sky"? After all, it's purpose is To Serve Mankind.

Re:Server in the Sky? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22050484)

After all, it's purpose is To Serve Mankind.

IT'S A COOKBOOK!
More accurately, it's a globally replicated recipe database.

Re:Server in the Sky? (2, Insightful)

djasbestos (1035410) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050522)

Add automated snatch vans and it becomes more like a federal EasyBake oven...

Re:Server in the Sky? (1)

drseuk (824707) | more than 6 years ago | (#22052284)

x.org announces "Client in the Sky" in response ...

Re:Server in the Sky? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049892)

Honestly. Wtf? Server in the Sky? That cannot be serious. I can't think of a name more likely to inspire fear/conspiracy theories. Why not call it the Big Brother Server? Or the Stalin Server? Or the Anal Rapist server?

I think this [uncyclopedia.org] answers your question.

Re:Server in the Sky? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049924)

i wonder why they don't just call it "interpol" like it's been called for the last few decades?

Re:Server in the Sky? (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051058)

Interpol includes the Frenchies. Wouldn't want to bother with a translation, now.

Re:Server in the Sky? (1)

recharged95 (782975) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051640)

Should be call the "data grid"? Oops, name already taken by another agency. The gain it's too generic a term...

There is no server in the sky, just a database... Then again I can't imagine IT staff flying around all day.

UKUSA Community (5, Insightful)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049310)

The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand make up the "UKUSA Community", which has been sharing information and intelligence in cooperative programs since World War II.

There are three categories of individuals proposed for this initiative:

- internationally recognised terrorists and felons
- major felons and suspected terrorists
- subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links

Categorization makes sense, and information sharing between allies for individuals suspected to travel internationally and who may want to actively target Western nations makes sense.

Every new database or mechanism for tracking or identifying individuals has privacy implications. Those implications must be managed by the laws of each respective nation. But increased information sharing will, by nature, almost always decrease "privacy".

As a DNI official recently noted, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"

Keep in mind, though, that this data is data that the respective nations already gather via law enforcement and investigative means. It is in databases that are already maintained. The proposal is to collectively share the information in these databases. Any argument that there might be privacy implications to voluntarily sharing data between allies, or that simply building the infrastructure and capability to do so creates an opportunity for abuse (with the implication that it should therefore not be done) are very weak arguments. The merits or drawbacks of the proposed program itself are what is at issue; not the technology. Arguing that technology shouldn't be used for the purpose is the same as arguing that law enforcement shouldn't be able to use, say, computers, databases, telephones, cameras, or vehicles because they "enhance" their abilities, and "could be abused". So, when arguing for or against this initiative, please concentrate on the actual initiative itself, not the unsurprising fact that long-time allies are cooperating with one another electronically.

If Northrop Grumman did as well with IDENT1 as it did on Grants.gov [grants.gov] in the early stages, we can expect it to not be very functional. ;-) (General Dynamics now holds the Grants.gov contract.)

Re:UKUSA Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049384)

I can already see the emergence of second class of citizens that are discriminated against because they're on these databases. Great.

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

Rayonic (462789) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049880)

I can already see the emergence of second class of citizens that are discriminated against because they're on these databases. Great.

Wanted criminals have always been second-class citizens. Captured criminals even moreso.

What, you mean an innocent person might end up wrongly accused? Oops, better scrap the whole criminal justice system then.

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050226)

Wanted criminals have always been second-class citizens. Captured criminals even moreso.

What, you mean an innocent person might end up wrongly accused? Oops, better scrap the whole criminal justice system then.


The UK keeps fingerprints of everyone who's ever been arrested, even if not charged.

The US fingerprints everyone who enters the country.

Even TFS says "Many of the prints are either from a person with no criminal record".

The justice systems works by bring evidence, and determining if there is sufficient evidence to prove someone's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, not by flagging someone up in a database.

Re:UKUSA Community (3, Insightful)

mr_mischief (456295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051526)

The problem isn't that you might be accused when innocent. That happens, and it's sad, but there's no way to stop that without, as you say, scrapping the whole system. The problem is that if your name has ever been associated with an investigation, even if you weren't the suspect and even if it was somebody else with your same name, they start trying to keep you from traveling freely and start spreading FUD about you anywhere a government agency has a hand in operating something.

The US no-fly list has already suffered from this. You can be fairly sure the NSA domestic spy program has done the same, since it's harder to pin them down as affecting the wrong people. Now, these governments are going to be notified overseas, so that the Anglophonic monoculture in which most Americans have been sheltered for generations provides nowhere to which you can expatriate if you decide the US is not for you because of problems like this. Even if the other countries enter into this program with honorable intent, if they're trusting data from an increasingly corrupt and heavy-handed member nation then their databases are the sentence whether or not you've committed any crime.

Both major parties in the US are in favor of this sort of thing, too. Don't imagine for a second that if the supposed small-government people in the Republican party want more government interference and more power over the people that the Democrats, who think government can solve everything, will get rid of it or clean it up. The only way to keep the government from controlling the people is if it's small enough for the people to control it.

Re:UKUSA Community (0, Flamebait)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049388)

There are three categories of individuals proposed for this initiative:

- internationally recognised terrorists and felons
- major felons and suspected terrorists
- subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links...


Hmmmm, they forgot radical "lefties" posting on Slashdot. The most dangerous bunch of all. It must be on their "super top secret" list.

Re:UKUSA Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049486)

They're considered "suspected terrorists" along with copyright violators and open source advocates.

Re:UKUSA Community (3, Informative)

daveschroeder (516195) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049988)

The US government makes quite extensive use of open source software. In the Intelligence Community alone, some of the examples of open source software in use on Intelink [wikipedia.org] , the IC's three networks that run at UNCLASSIFIED, SECRET, and TOP SECRET/SCI levels:

- LAMP (Linux, apache, PHP, MySQL) stacks to support a wide variety of applications, such as some below
- MediaWiki powers Intellipedia [wikipedia.org] , the highly successful wikis that run on the three iterations of Intelink
- phpBB powers Intelink Forums [ncsi.com]
- WordPress MU enables the current generation of Intelink Blogs [ncsi.com]
- Jabber provides the IC-wide Intelink Instant Messaging
- tag|Connect is a social bookmarking tool [gd-ais.com] based on del.icio.us
- Zimbra powers the uGov Collaboration Suite
- RSS, XML, and other open standards are used extensively
- ...and much more

These services are run in robust, highly available environments, and have gotten great support within various IC components. In fact, much of the social software movement within the IC is reliant on open source software and open standards, and they have been embraced. For a great overview of what the IC is doing with social software, see:

- 'The Intellipedians' The social software movement within the U.S. Intelligence Community [fcw.com] , Federal Computer Week, 16 August 2007

And if you don't want to sit through the presentation (it is a bit long, though quite good), see:

- Open-Source Spying [nytimes.com] , New York Times Magazine, 3 December 2006
- A Wikipedia of Secrets [washingtonpost.com] , Washington Post, 5 November 2006

And on the newest initiative, A-Space:

- Logged In and Sharing Gossip, er, Intelligence [nytimes.com] , New York Times, 2 September 2007
- Classified social-networking system promises to help U.S. spies talk, collaborate [iht.com] , Associated Press, 5 September 2007

Some of the articles are a little over-simplified, but the reality is that social software running on open source platforms and environments is taking off in the Intelligence Community.

Let me tell you a story (5, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049704)

Let me tell you a story, a true one as it happens. Its about how I became a leftie.

As some folk on the net know I come from a political family. My cousin was chairman of the UK Conservative party. Other members of the family have been in pretty much every movement you can imagine. One of my great aunts chained herself to the gates of Greenham common at the age of 80 or so.

When I arrived at University I knew a couple of things. First I distrusted the jingoism of the Tory party, I thought their economic policy sucked but I thought that whatever their intentions might be on the cold war they did at least stand up for freedom.

First week a member of SUCA, Southampton University conservative Association tells me about the blacklist the party ran through an organization called the Economic League. Circulated to employers in the engineering and defense industries. Anyone who signed up for radical politics would be on it.

Fuck you I thought. Joined the Labour party the same day. When you have a political party resorting to Stalinist tactics its time to get rid of them. Lets have denouncement boxes at every corner like they had in East Germany.

I found out later, when the FCS was wound up by the Tory central office, that this particular Stalinist scheme was one of the reasons. I have no way of knowing if my particular complaint made it through but there were many others.

The list became public after Robert Maxwell bought a copy and dumped it at the Labour party conference. I was not on it, which of course I took as an insult. But every member of the SUCA committee was. They had basically been reporting on each other during their perpetual faction fights.

When a government has as much power as the Bush administration has claimed, when it considers the first ammendment and compliance with the Geneva Conventions optional extras rather than the law of the land, when it starts wars on stovepiped intelligence and dismisses real intelligence that does not comply with its opinions, when prosecutors who charge corrupt politicians of the President's party or refuse to bring trumped up charges against the opposition are dismissed, when other prosecutors who do the reverse keep their jobs, when no member of the Cabinet can give a straight definition of torture, when all of these are true and more, it is time to say that this is a government that must have less power and not more. We must fear the Bush administration far more than any of the bogeymen they keep to scare us.

Re:Let me tell you a story (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22050894)

You truly are a classic modern liberal: all your actions described in your little Red Mao Manifesto above are based on emotion and not a bit on *logic*. You know how screwed up our world would *really* be if liberals (and I am not talking about the good ol' Constitutionalists in the US who were also known as Liberals, because they wanted complete freedom for everyone) would be running the show.

"We must fear..." LOL!

We fear what we cannot understand. ;)

Take care -- Finland signs off.

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050220)

(Score:0, Flamebait)

Coming up next on UBS-TV "When Authoritarians Attack"

Re:UKUSA Community (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049492)

The problem is that the technology can lead to a significant difference in the way the data is used. Just look at Echelon (again, a very similar "data sharing" agreement between the same block of countries).

Although one could also argue with Echelon that "this is data which was already collected by the respective governments", the fact that a country received data that they were legally prohibited from collecting themselves was the issue. I could imagine a similar situation here, when all countries routinely begin collecting fingerprints from everyone entering their borders (as the USA already does).

Such data-collection programs can slip through, because the government says "we just collect the data on foreigners!". The fact that they then immediately make this data available to the other countries, and in return immediately receive access to similar data about their own citizens, is never mentioned.

The technology becomes an issue because it then allows massive trawling through the data. When fingerprint data exchange involved faxing a blurry copy across the Atlantic, abuse is effectively limited _by_the_technology_. When the home-government can instantly search through every fingerprint of every citizen who has ever visited one of the partner countries, it becomes a whole different animal.

Re:UKUSA Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049504)

Something interesting about this is that NG owns the contracts for a lot of Public Sector IT work, such as networking, security, VOIP, etc. A contact I have in the local County gov't in this area shared an email from NG with me when they were working together on an IP telephony solution. Basically, it had the sound of: we will sell you this, but still own it (and presumably have all sorts of connections to it), and hire you to service and maintain it.

I don't see that as being an altruistic move on NG's part.

What concerns me about this initiative is the part that mentions "subjects of terrorist investigations". As long as people are removed from the list/category when proven innocent, and that it's non-trivial to be placed in that category in the first place (or to be accused of terrorism), this is fine. But how often does THAT ring true? It's a globalized extension of an existing problem, making it orders of magnitude worse.

-M

Re:UKUSA Community (5, Insightful)

Umuri (897961) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049642)

Disclaimer: I do not hold the opinion i express in this post. In fact I hold no opinion on this topic whatsoever because I have not read enough to be informed. This is merely presented, like most of my posts, to be a devils advocate to promote looking at the converse arguments to any given statement.

You said that
"Any argument that there might be privacy implications to voluntarily sharing data between allies, or that simply building the infrastructure and capability to do so creates an opportunity for abuse (with the implication that it should therefore not be done) are very weak arguments."

Let me propose a slight different view for you.
Most countries have laws protecting their own citizens private rights, but not those that aren't their citizens.
Now, if more than 2 countries have such a policy, then share information freely, it effectively gives both countries freedom to spy on their own people, without any reprecussions. They just ask their partner country to do it. In most cases they don't even need to ask, it's already in the databases somewhere, due to how vast most foreign policy spying is.

The privacy implication is that by sharing information, you are allowed to violate laws in your own country by letting countries where its not illegal do it then give you the ill gotten gains.

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

Petaris (771874) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050616)

You mean sort of like holding suspects in countries where torture, er "enhanced interrogation" is legal so you can claim your not doing anything wrong?

Re:UKUSA Community (2, Insightful)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049656)

Supposing an overseas privateer runs off with this data, whose jurisdiction would attach?

Any argument that there might be privacy implications to voluntarily sharing data between allies, or that simply building the infrastructure and capability to do so creates an opportunity for abuse (with the implication that it should therefore not be done) are very weak arguments.
They aren't weak at all. They are quite valid considering the fact that there isn't any such thing as a world government that can intervene when things go wrong. And humans being what they are, things WILL go wrong eventually. This isn't like Texas and Arkansas sharing information, as those belong to the same greater nation. Likewise, there exists a European Union across the pond. If you can't imagine the issues when sovereign nations start trading protected information without an enforceable body of law to govern its use, well, I don't know what to say to you...

What would you say, by the way, if we were trading this information with Iran, Russia, China and/or Nigeria? Same difference?

So, when arguing for or against this initiative, please concentrate on the actual initiative itself, not the unsurprising fact that long-time allies are cooperating with one another electronically.
It may well seem natural, but I still contend that we have ZERO control of what these allies do with our data once we hand it over. This alone is a good reason to abstain. Instead, why not attach the principle of 'minimum necessary'? Isn't that still an axiom in security?

Re:UKUSA Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049662)

"The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand"

Otherwise known as the Anglo Saxon alliance, South Africa got kicked out for some reason.

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050880)

Nelson Mandela might be able to tell you why.

Re:UKUSA Community (2, Informative)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051050)

Otherwise known as the Anglo Saxon alliance, South Africa got kicked out for some reason.

There is no "Anglo Saxon alliance". The Anglosphere [wikipedia.org] is made up of English speaking countries that share a common culture and history. South Africa is definately considered to be part of the Anglosphere.

There are many overlapping alliances and agreements between members of the Anglosphere (the "special relationship" [wikipedia.org] between the US/UK, the Anzus treaty [wikipedia.org] , the US/Canadian Joint Board of Defense [wikipedia.org] , NORAD [wikipedia.org] , etc, etc) but there is no one "Anglo-Saxon alliance" as far as I'm aware and the members of the Anglosphere have their share of disputes (trade disputes between the US and Canada, New Zealand banning nuclear vessels from their ports, US treaty obligations to Latin-America that conflict with the goals of other Anglosphere nations, etc, etc).

Re:UKUSA Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049696)

Will the countries share their wet list as well? by wet list, i mean all the names and location of undercover agents off-country? of course not! so, sharing data about people is fine. frak privacy! sharing data about agents: a NO. So, privacy of agents matter most.

i miss the good ole' days when wars of terror could be prevented by undercover agents willing to take down organisations without the need of war. - i guess it's only on TV that one sees groups of heroes fighting against terror. oh well.

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049782)

I agree that it's not the technology at issue here but the general principles involved in sharing this sort of personal data between countries. The trouble is that its often only the technical solution which is considered without too much thought for the consequences on a personal or political level.

Putting in the infrastructure to share this information does raise concerns about who will have access to this data and what it will be used for. For example the DNA information the UK police currently collect is collected from anyone they arrest regardless of whether they have actually committed a crime or are charged and convicted with anything.

So far as I am aware that information is handled in accordance with the UK rules governing the collection and maintenance of peoples records which our allies such as the US or Canada may not adhere to so it may be if the police question me about something in the UK and take my DNA ( I have no option to refuse permission for them to do this ) then later on they may pass that to the FBI who might decide to outsource it's storage to an external company who then decide to sell my data on to other 3rd parties. I'm fairly sure the US does not have the same standards for dealing with personal data that the UK does so I'm curious exactly how they will share this data and not breach their legal obligations in the UK for it's protection.

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22052070)

So far as I am aware that information is handled in accordance with the UK rules governing the collection and maintenance of peoples records...

The UK government has only one rule, to sell your personal data to anyone willing to buy it to make the government a quick buck. Just look at the driver records sold to any any criminal posing as a legit car parking enforcement company, look at the DNA data taken - sold to any company wanting the information (for now mostly life assurance companies), the local voting register - sold to any junk mailing company willing to buy the list with lovely names and addresses, passenger data if you fly - along with credit card details and if you are a vegetarian, email address, when you last went to the toilet..

Forget about any bogus safeguards for this new data grab, what about the data already being sold / given away now?

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049852)

As a DNI official recently noted, "We have a saying in this business: 'Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
That has got to be the biggest dose of horse puckey I've ever seen.

It's possible to maintain security without tracking everything about ordinary, law-abiding citizens -- which is most of us. It's just not convenient to do so.

Re:UKUSA Community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22050216)

"suspected terrorists... subjects of terrorist investigations"

Also known as: "anyone the organs of the state wants to harass."

Trans-national data sharing creates novel privacy concerns. For example, there was a case a few years ago where a guy was arrested in Canada and charged with a crime. His defence was that he was in the U.S. at the time of the alleged offence, committing another crime. In the U.S. (at that time, when the Bill of Rights was still in force) he could have taken the 5th. In Canada he could not: we have a provision in the Canada Evidence Act that allows the Crown to compel incriminating testimony, although that testimony in and of itself cannot be used as evidence in any criminal proceedings (knowing who done it, however, is a big boost to any investigation.)

However, that bar did not apply to the U.S. authorities. So the poor (criminal) guy was in a position of being forced by the laws of one country to confess to a crime he'd committed in another, and having that confession used against him (the 5th amendment says you can't be compelled to testify against yourself, not that the organs of the state can't use testimony against yourself...) Synergy is a wonderful thing.

And as to "security and privacy being zero-sum", those of us who consider our privacy to part of our security. For example, there is some obsolete document that says something about, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..."

Re:UKUSA Community (2, Insightful)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050332)

> "UKUSA Community"

Now why did I read that as Yakuza community ?

Re:UKUSA Community (1)

Webee (1220224) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050338)

I find most disturbing from this news not the scope of new information amassed in one location but who runs it. In the current system I cannot find peace of mind that it will be used justly and fairly. Everybody denies until guilty, normal i say! If we are to leave the politicians with this tool we should request they fall under the same rule. All searches should be scrutinized not by politicians or analysts but by members of the community, us. And they should be liable to the same searches when needed. No delays, no special cases. They are representatives, but sometimes we should just do it ourselves, just to make sure... Concerned that we are loosing our rights and influence in our society to a special group, .gov.

Caution: Jews on the March (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049314)

The Jew has emerged from his well appointed layer, ready for blood.

The Jew wants money, land, and power. He will stop at nothing to get it.

When his hooked nose smells money, the chase is on.

The Jew's War of Terror has only just begun.

Re:Caution: Jews on the March (0, Flamebait)

Slorv (841945) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049394)

A brownshirt! I thought you guys disappeared with WW2.

Oh i see see they want to officially send our priv (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049324)

Oh i see see they want to officially send our private information to others. How nice of them.
I grant the US and Japan cough cough an official link so they can trade information on biometric data belonging to us citizens, Australians, UK citizens etc.

whois the most dangerous 'terrorist'? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049332)

does anyone recall who hitker's favorite 'enemy' was? allLIES, all the time, for everybody. let yOUR conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_sc/ye_climate_records;_ylt=A0WTcVgednZHP2gB9wms0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080108/ts_alt_afp/ushealthfrancemortality;_ylt=A9G_RngbRIVHsYAAfCas0NUE [yahoo.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A [nytimes.com]

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying [google.com]

dictator style micro management has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & softwar gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster. meanwhile, you can help to stop the bleeding (loss of life & limb);

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/28/vermont.banning.bush.ap/index.html [cnn.com]

the bleeding must be stopped before any healing can begin. jailing a couple of corepirate nazi hired goons would send a clear message to the rest of the world from US. any truthful look at the 'scorecard' would reveal that we are a society in decline/deep doo-doo, despite all of the scriptdead pr ?firm? generated drum beating & flag waving propaganda that we are constantly bombarded with. is it time to get real yet? please consider carefully ALL of yOUR other 'options'. the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption. fortunately there's an 'army' of light bringers, coming yOUR way. the little ones/innocents must/will be protected. after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit? for each of the creators' innocents harmed in any way, there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available. 'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet, & by your behaviors. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable. some of US should consider ourselves somewhat fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate. it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc.... as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis. concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order. 'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

meanwhile, the life0cidal philistines continue on their path of death, debt, & disruption for most of US. gov. bush denies health care for the little ones;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/03/bush.veto/index.html [cnn.com]

whilst demanding/extorting billions to paint more targets on the bigger kids;

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/12/bush.war.funding/index.html [cnn.com]

& pretending that it isn't happening here;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3086937.ece [timesonline.co.uk]
all is not lost/forgotten/forgiven

(yOUR elected) president al gore (deciding not to wait for the much anticipated 'lonesome al answers yOUR questions' interview here on /.) continues to attempt to shed some light on yOUR foibles. talk about reverse polarity;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3046116.ece [timesonline.co.uk]

International terrorist groups? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049344)

Never mind that. What I want to know is where are the successful prosecutions for those that started an illegal war and those involved in the illegal surveillance of their own citizens?

The thing about 1984 not being a howto manual misses the point; it's the party members - not the proles whom are under scrutiny. The intel community and governments are making their bed, now we just need to force them to lie in it.

Sounds more like... (0, Troll)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049346)

... the coalition of predominantly caucasian countries.

Go figure, right?

Re:Sounds more like... (2, Funny)

MrMr (219533) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049630)

I'd say the 'Puritan Coalition' is closer to the mark, or perhaps 'the coalition of countries that don't talk funny'.

Re:Sounds more like... (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050210)

Aussies talk pretty funny. I'm sure they'd find my southern accent hilarious as well.

SKYNET says you are bad... (1)

jkinney3 (535278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049386)

Let's let the paranoia party make more decisions please.

CSI is not the real world (1)

Nomen Publicus (1150725) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049392)

The problem with these schemes will be false positives, each of which will tie up a couple of staff for a few hours. Fingerprint matching in the real world is not like CSI.

Re:CSI is not the real world (1)

OMEGA Power (651936) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050252)

The problem with these schemes will be false positives, each of which will tie up a couple of staff for a few hours. Fingerprint matching in the real world is not like CSI.

Or lockup a couple of innocent people for a few decades. Which seems more likely given that this program is run by the people or brought you (by the admission of the FBI's own inspector general) thousands of illegal misuses of "National Security Letters"

Greenbaum "Spirit in the Sky" (1)

Paul Rose (771894) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049396)

Great. Now I can't get the Norman Greenbaum "Spirit in the Sky" out of my head.

Surely somebody with talent can whip up some War on Terror lyrics for it...

Greenbaum "Spirit in the Sky" (2, Interesting)

toddhisattva (127032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051158)

The song is already a Jihadi song, you only need to change one word!

"Spirit in the Sky" by Norman bin Greenbaum:

When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best
When I lay me down to die
Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
That's where I'm gonna go when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best

Prepare yourself you know it's a must
Gotta have a friend in Muhammad
So you know that when you die
He's gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
Gonna recommend you
To the spirit in the sky
That's where you're gonna go when you die
When you die and they lay you to rest
You're gonna go to the place that's the best

Never been a sinner I never sinned
I got a friend in Muhammed
So you know that when I die
He's gonna set me up with
The spirit in the sky
Oh set me up with the spirit in the sky
That's where I'm gonna go when I die
When I die and they lay me to rest
I'm gonna go to the place that's the best
Go to the place that's the best

Is Sarah Connor on a watch list? (1)

Gorkamecha (948294) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049400)

Server in the Sky....or perhaps a "Sky-Net"? Hmmmmm???

Is this legal in the UK? (1)

TechnoBunny (991156) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049416)

Doesnt the DPA expressly forbid transferring data to roganisations whose data protection laws are not as least as stringent as the DPA?

Or does that not count because of the terrorismisticals?

Re:Is this legal in the UK? (1)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049538)

That's why the UK government leaked all those sensitive data about half of their subjects a few mounthes ago.

Re:Is this legal in the UK? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050470)

Doesnt the DPA expressly forbid transferring data to roganisations whose data protection laws are not as least as stringent as the DPA?

The DPA has a number of getouts:

- An organisation isn't obliged to give you information you request if doing so might compromise a criminal investigation.
- An organisation can't send data to countries without similar protections in place without your consent. Note that they are not obliged to have procedures (other than "Fine, you don't have to deal with us if you don't want to") to deal with anyone who doesn't consent.

Plus a few others I can't remember right now.

Frankly, it's not a particularly strong law. Its purpose seems more to ensure due diligence on the part of anyone dealing with data, not to expressly prohibit data transfer.

"War on Terror" (1)

nlitement (1098451) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049418)

War on drugs, war on terror. Come on, let's have a war on crime and a war on war. What's next? War on poverty?

Re:"War on Terror" (1)

Macfox (50100) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049522)

War on bullshit? Nah too obvious

Re:"War on Terror" (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049552)

'What's next? War on poverty?'

Already done! [wikipedia.org]

Why not Interpol? (4, Interesting)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049490)

Given that this is really crime rather than military intelligence and the like, I wonder why this isn't done through Interpol [wikipedia.org] . It seems especially silly as most (all!?) of the nations that contain the source of the current generation of terrorists are excluded.

Re:Why not Interpol? (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049984)

I wonder why this isn't done through Interpol.
I don't know why a Rock Band [wikipedia.org] would be any more suited for this than any one else...
Or you mean who Inspector Clouseau and Inspector Zenigata work for?

Re:Why not Interpol? (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051376)

From Wikipedia:

In order to maintain as politically neutral a role as possible, Interpol's constitution forbids its involvement in crimes that do not overlap several member countries, or in any political, military, religious, or racial crimes.


Maybe that's why.

Re:Why not Interpol? (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051940)

The following sentence is:

Its work focuses primarily on public safety, terrorism, organized crime, war crimes, illicit drug production, drug trafficking, weapons smuggling, trafficking in human beings, money laundering, child pornography, white-collar crime, computer crime, intellectual property crime and corruption.
[emphasis mine]

Re:Why not Interpol? (1)

ardent99 (1087547) | more than 6 years ago | (#22052162)

1) Because this really isn't about crime at all, that's just an element added to make it more palatable to the gullible. It is about increasing the ways and means the government has to monitor ordinary citizens at home and abroad. Note that one category of people in the database is "subjects of terrorist investigations." That basically means anyone the government decides to investigate. Interpol's purpose is really to do police work. Note the quote from the article, "if existing systems are connected up to it then the intelligence agencies would have to approve," by the Northrup Grumman spokesperson interviewed. They all know that this is intended to involve intelligence agencies, not just police agencies.

2) Because the purpose of this initiative is to get around laws, not to enforce laws. It allows a quid pro quo of "You investigate my people and I'll investigate yours, and we'll share information", thus extending the reach of government monitoring. For example, if in the US it would be illegal or unpopular to take everyone's fingerprints at the border, but it isn't in another country, the US can obtain prints of any of it's own citizens who travel to that country through this sharing.

3) Because interpol involves countries that have more resistance to US bullying. This plan is starting with countries that the US can push around, or are otherwise "yes-men" to the US. Only once the desired procedures are established and in place will they try to recruit other countries who might otherwise have objected to methods introduced during the formative phase

4) Because interpol has been around a while and has learned something about proper policies and procedures, which the US doesn't want to abide by. The Bush policy is "shoot first, don't answer questions later," which goes against the policies of good police work.

5) Because by starting a brand new initiative and organization, the US can completely control it.

Re:Why not Interpol? (1)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 6 years ago | (#22052236)

It seems especially silly as most (all!?) of the nations that contain the source of the current generation of terrorists are excluded.

That is precisely the reason. They don't trust that law enforcement in those countries isn't compromised (= has people whose true loyalties are terrorist organizations). We don't know if US and UK intelligence services trust Saudi Arabia. We do know that they don't trust Iran and Syria.

For the member list see http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/Members/default.asp [interpol.int]

they're trusting us with the database? (2, Funny)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049506)

Seriously, the UK doesn't exactly have the best record on keeping databases safe.

Not that I care. I'd be willing to bet that 99.9 percent of the contents of any anti terror database is crap kept in there to make it seem important. Or stuff they think is important, but when it comes down to it is worthless.

Really, if sending huge armies to stampede across the middle east didn't work, how is a database going to help? Are we going to send sql queries at them or something?

It's not 'international' (1)

bytesex (112972) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049528)

It's 'anglospheric'. All they have to do is add a few boxes to every Echolon relay station.

I wouldn't worry too much about the FBI (4, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049594)

Their last major IT projects were spectacular failures that never went anywhere, and I don't see how this is going to end up much different. This will probably go the way of Virtual Case File, among others.

Re:I wouldn't worry too much about the FBI (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049740)

Since the IDENT1 database is probably composed largely of car stereo thieves, paedos, football hooligans and other miscreants, I don't see much threat to the security of the United States from anyone on the list. Now if it was our immigration list, that's probably full of terrorists* or at least full of hard-working Poles who could knock the FBI up a high-quality condo at a good price. *kidding

Re:I wouldn't worry too much about the FBI (2, Interesting)

I8TheWorm (645702) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050100)

the computer technology arm of the US defence company Northrop Grumman
What are you talking about?!? I just did a contract for NG a couple of years ago where I wrote a reporting system for a yet unclassed ship in C# using CR! How could the brilliant minds that come up with that architecture for military vessels be associated with failure?

disclaimer: I needed the money

U.S. government has killed 11,000,000 people... (3, Interesting)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049602)

The U.S. government has often used its "cooperation" with the governments of other countries to corrupt those governments. See, for example, Coups Arranged or Backed by the USA [krysstal.com] . Most or all of that corruption happened for profit, such as kickbacks of U.S. government foreign aid. When the governments of Israel or Pakistan buy weapons from U.S. manufacturers using money from "foreign aid", that is embezzlement of taxpayer money.

The Cooperative Research History Commons [cooperativeresearch.org] is very valuable for those wanting to do their own research.

The poorly edited but very interesting free movie Zeitgeist [zeitgeistmovie.com] explains in three parts that 1) People who believe in myths are easily manipulated. 2) It is common that people are manipulated through fear. 3) The U.S. monetary system is controlled for the profit of a few individuals. (Also see The Creature from Jekyll Island [amazon.com] , an excellent but not perfect book about financial corruption.)

The U.S. government has killed directly or indirectly caused the death of an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the Second World war, partly by invading or bombing 25 countries.

Re:U.S. government has killed 11,000,000 people... (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050046)

if anyone can keep an open mind long enough to watch this movie in its entirety they could gain some insight about the big picture http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ [zeitgeistmovie.com]

Re:U.S. government has killed 11,000,000 people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22052118)

That zeitgeist movie is a conspiracy theorist wet dream.

I like how half of the movie is somehow trying to teach us about history than all of a sudden goes to the conspiracy and the typical nutcase theory on why demolitions were setup in the building.

To have an open mind to accept this you have to be a complete nutcase, with such bullshit at the end of 'everybody has a chip in them and you could be shut down at any moment'

Nobody takes you people seriously and you are gonna have some really serious mental problems (if not already) if you go on believing '9/11 was a conspiracy'

Re:U.S. government has killed 11,000,000 people... (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22052386)

Nobody takes you people seriously and you are gonna have some really serious mental problems (if not already) if you go on believing '9/11 was a conspiracy'
Yeah, but that's only because mind control rays beamed down from satellites the Bilderberg group and the Neoconservatives run on behalf of shape shifting lizards have driven him mad.

Re:U.S. government has killed 11,000,000 people... (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 6 years ago | (#22052302)

This is what it looks like from the ground when a B52 carpet bombs

http://www.militaryfix.com/videos/b-52-carpet-bombing/ [militaryfix.com]

Then again, the only people that got carpet bombed recently were the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican guard, so it's not like they were innocent victims or even hapless conscripts. They were true believers who volunteered to fight for an evil regime. Not sure where you get your 11m figure from BTW, presumably one of those websites that includes all the people the Iraqi insurgents killed in Iraq as part of the number of people the US killed.

For the People, By the People? (3, Insightful)

curmudgeon99 (1040054) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049648)

What the hell has happened to our government? Have they forgotten that they exist to serve us, not to use us. This is another example of how we need to stop our government from intruding so deeply into the privacy of its citizens. What are we fighting for--if we surrender our freedoms in the name of fighting that amorphous all-purpose villain, terrorism?

Re:For the People, By the People? (1)

KudyardRipling (1063612) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050542)

If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be either in Gitmo or being rendered in an alkali tank somewhere in a 'secured nondescript building'. We are fighting for the oligarkhij. Political freedom was a necessary (tolerated) evil until the security infrastructure be perfected. From the way that people's rights are being ignored, I say that said infrastructure is 'comfortably close to perfection'.

So, bend your head down to the work and produce, .

Downmodding proves veracity beyond question.

Re:For the People, By the People? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22051568)

Don't be naive. Governments exist to manage your existence so as to generate the maximum gain for the State or for the private industries who contribute to the GNP. Anything else is a pathetic lie.

Ah, and don't try to revolt or they'll squash you like a bug.

CDs in the mail (1)

nozzo (851371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049672)

yeah this is great until some 'low-level clerk' decides it's a good idea to mail the entire database on CDs in response to an agencies request.
where the data is that widely dispersed the security is only as strong as it's weakest link (goodbye!) so let's hope lessons are learned by recent events and agencies implement a good clear and concise security methodology to protect the data.
Well, that's assuming it ever takes place.

war on terror, just an excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049708)

I hope you people (especially the ones living in America) see that the so-called war on terror looks like a mere excuse to cut civil liberties. I really wonder how does the average American Joe feel about it. To me, they have made up the perfect enemy to justify spying, war in Iraq and whatever else. What will be next, thought control?

Just remember... (4, Insightful)

Jtheletter (686279) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049724)

It's not illegal for the US to spy on British citizens, and vice versa. This is a potential conduit for getting around pesky little details like domestic wiretapping laws.

IFF [sic] they keep to their mandate of tracking only international criminal suspects, then this is a good thing and merely links DBs that already exist. It's the potential expansion of sharing all data for any reason that may be cause for worry.

Re:Just remember... (1)

rainsford (803085) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050730)

This "fact" has been repeated in almost every slashdot discussion on this topic, but it's not even remotely true. While it is legal for the US to spy on British citizens and for the Brits to spy on US citizens, we need to be careful about how we're defining "legal". In this case, it's the laws of the respective countries that allow spying on foreigners...British law does not prohibit spying on Americans, and US law doesn't prohibit spying on Brits. But American intelligence agencies don't operate under British law, they operate under American law. Attempting to obtain information on US persons without legal authorization is illegal under US law, regardless of how they attempt to go about it. Asking another country to do the actual information gathering is in no way a legal loophole, any more than asking someone to kill your boss for you exempts you from prosecution. If the NSA asked GCHQ to spy on American citizens, GCHQ might not be breaking any British laws, but the NSA would be violating US laws.

Re:Just remember... (1)

bloobloo (957543) | more than 6 years ago | (#22052180)

Ah, but if the foreign intelligence service decided to give info without a request, then it would be legal. By agreeing to share info in general terms, and not specifically mentioning which case, then there isn't the proximity required for it to be illegal evidence gathering. And of course there is no way that law enforcement / intelligence types from different countries would discuss off the record what they want looked at, is there...

Server in the sky (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22049744)

Skynet??? Is this a promotional for Fox TV?

Re:Server in the sky (1)

Goffee71 (628501) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050180)

With respect to Dr. and the Medics...

When I cry and I'm under arrest
Get put on the database that's best
Where they store name, prints and eyes
Going on file with the server in the sky
They're all logging on to the server in the sky,
that's where the spies go when they scry.
When they're looking out for potential unrest
The feds log on to the server that's the best

Re:Server in the sky (1)

Random_Goblin (781985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050670)

you're showing your age mate... (which i suspect from my l33t powers is much the same as mine)

It was orignally a Norman Greenbaum song from the late 60's... was a chart toppper here in 1970 i believe.

Having said that the Dr and the Medics cover is the one i automatically have in my head too

War on terror? (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049812)

The people who fought the "war on drugs" were obviously on drugs, since their remedies caused the very behavior they were allegedly fighting against: teenaged drug use, gangs, violence, etc just like alcohol prohibition.

So what are the "warriers" fighting the "war on terror" on? Terror?

War on terror: "Be afraid. Be very afraid!"

Re:War on terror? (1)

ildon (413912) | more than 6 years ago | (#22051442)

We could say "The War on the Use of Violent Terrorism" but it doesn't sound as cool and is a pain to type.

So Canada's an ally in the War on Terror now? (1)

MochaMan (30021) | more than 6 years ago | (#22049902)

And here I'd thought Bush was still pissed off at Canada for not joining his war in Iraq. I guess with Harper begging to be next in line to kiss his arse, things are looking rosier again.

Write your MP [parl.gc.ca] and express your views.

Re:So Canada's an ally in the War on Terror now? (1)

toofast (20646) | more than 6 years ago | (#22052420)

Canada participates in the "War on Terror" via a contribution in Afghanistan. The Iraq debacle is a whole other story.

Nothing to hide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22050054)

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing in your head.

nothing to hide? (4, Funny)

lysse (516445) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050248)

Anyone trotting out the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" line should be forced to use toilets with security cameras installed in the cubicles. (Unless they already are, and it's Stockholm Syndrome speaking.)

Nick Fury said to be first secretary general (1)

ruinevil (852677) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050282)

Seriously though, isn't there Interpol. This is exactly what they specialize in.

Creation (1)

synonymous (707504) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050550)

Sorry world, but your generalization so called "terrorism" is a creation.

I am curious world, what do you generally term a grouping of people that insinuate and threaten based on speculation? Further, maim and kill based on that speculation? I know the human shield of buzzword "american" has been tossed around a bit.

What o wordie could you use there??

BTW, what ever happened to North Korea? They have publicly claimed nuclear weapon capacity. Saddam publicly claimed non capacity. Guess North Korea has not got anything of value.

Enjoy world, and go go slashdotters, eat and grind through all the poo and carbide of the aeons.

The innocent man has nothing to hide (1)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050608)

My trial for indecent exposure is in 2 weeks.

perhaps we've entered a new era on privacy (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050900)

that, is, nevermind the philosophical arguments about why privacy should be upheld, or shouldn't: it is simply getting impossible to enforce. much like copyright as a philosophical notion mihg tbe pristine, in the real world it is turning impossible to police and uphold

regardless of how you feel about privacy or copyright, the point is simply that the notions are unenforceable in today's world

and not just from the government, but from your own fellow citizens. forget big brother, little brother destroys your privacy just as much. that is, you can't do much nowdays without someone with a cell phone camera closeby, ready to record

is that good? is that bad?

not my point. good or bad, my point is, it's inevitable: the death of privacy. i'm not cheering, i'm not crying, i'm merely recognizing the inevitable

There is no war on terror (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 6 years ago | (#22050954)

It is just a way for governments to easily manipulate people (everyone wants to win a war and will more easily give up their freedoms to do so). Terrorism is a complex social problem that has been around since the dawn of man and has no easy answers. Stop using the term "war on terror"

not terror but ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22051236)

it's no terror that they are worried about, they cause that themselves.
They are concerned about blowback from their operations abroad. That's why they feel they need this kind of thing.

doesn't anybody remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22051410)

Maher Arar [wikipedia.org] the Canadian citizen the US grabbed and shipped to Syria for 10 months to be electrocuted? It was because of uncorroborated hunches being shared. Oh this data must be true, we got it from [somewhere else].

mod d03n (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22051674)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>