turning the tables on the snoops
December 14, 2002 1:51 PM Subscribe
Total Information Awareness begins at home.
oh, delicious irony!
One Bush voter, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of the pranks on Poindexter: "If they're making him as uncomfortable as we are, good."
anonymity? is he/she afraid of being reprimanded? I had no idea they were so hard on you guys, now I'm beginning to understand your tenacity.
posted by mcsweetie at 2:53 PM on December 14, 2002
One Bush voter, speaking on condition of anonymity, said of the pranks on Poindexter: "If they're making him as uncomfortable as we are, good."
anonymity? is he/she afraid of being reprimanded? I had no idea they were so hard on you guys, now I'm beginning to understand your tenacity.
posted by mcsweetie at 2:53 PM on December 14, 2002
Good for Smith. I hope Poindexter and his nosey pals (and neighbors) are thoroughly freaked out and that some of them reconsider this program. Demonstrations of the intrusiveness of TIA need to be made now. Once it's up to speed it will be virtually impossible to dismantle.
posted by neuroshred at 2:59 PM on December 14, 2002
posted by neuroshred at 2:59 PM on December 14, 2002
I have begun to assume that anyone "speaking on condition of anonymity" is either a "figment of the writer's imagination" or a "fellow employee at the place where the writer works."
I defy those conditionally anonymous people to prove me wrong!
And guys (and gals...) - there's a flip side to this project.
Just because hundreds of them can do it to Pointdexter, well, doesn't that mean that hundreds of them could do it to McSweetie or Donkeyschlong as well? Say, oh, an armed and angry group of freedom fighters who want to track someone who belongs to any group?
Isn't it stalking at some point? Not legal-definition stalking, but I'm just as uncomfortable with 100 random strangers (oh, say, some high tech gang?) performing what will inevitably be known as a "total information awareness attack" (or "Getting Pointdextered") on someone? Especially someone not in the public light?
What's to prevent the MeFi community, for example, for deciding that Donkeyschlongs posts (no personal offense intended, DS, you just posted this item) are SO OFFENSIVE that they decide to Pointdexter him? Set up a Geocities site with all his salient details and generally wreak havoc with his life?
posted by swerdloff at 3:17 PM on December 14, 2002
I defy those conditionally anonymous people to prove me wrong!
And guys (and gals...) - there's a flip side to this project.
Just because hundreds of them can do it to Pointdexter, well, doesn't that mean that hundreds of them could do it to McSweetie or Donkeyschlong as well? Say, oh, an armed and angry group of freedom fighters who want to track someone who belongs to any group?
Isn't it stalking at some point? Not legal-definition stalking, but I'm just as uncomfortable with 100 random strangers (oh, say, some high tech gang?) performing what will inevitably be known as a "total information awareness attack" (or "Getting Pointdextered") on someone? Especially someone not in the public light?
What's to prevent the MeFi community, for example, for deciding that Donkeyschlongs posts (no personal offense intended, DS, you just posted this item) are SO OFFENSIVE that they decide to Pointdexter him? Set up a Geocities site with all his salient details and generally wreak havoc with his life?
posted by swerdloff at 3:17 PM on December 14, 2002
see, swerdloff, your argument, at least to me, indicates that this information should be even more protected, not made more nebulously accessible so that any underpaid, poorly educated fed with a grudge can start painting ordinary citizens with a red brush. we've all heard tails of shenanigans involving celebrity tax returns at the irs. now imagine that same level of incompetence and lack of ethics coupled with the ability to strip you of your basic rights and execute you without any sort of due process.
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:35 PM on December 14, 2002
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:35 PM on December 14, 2002
Another funny little point is that this information gathering system "which aims to root out potential terrorists", (in the article) is not aimed at harassing citizens. Poindexter is not a potential terrorist, so the analogy or "irony" falls flat, but the stalking and harrassment angle does not.
If you're not a terrorist, don't worry about it. All "big brother" has to do is pick up a telephone book and your personal information is at his fingertips.
posted by hama7 at 6:58 PM on December 14, 2002
If you're not a terrorist, don't worry about it. All "big brother" has to do is pick up a telephone book and your personal information is at his fingertips.
posted by hama7 at 6:58 PM on December 14, 2002
Another funny little point is that this information gathering system "which aims to root out potential terrorists", (in the article) is not aimed at harassing citizens. Poindexter is not a potential terrorist, so the analogy or "irony" falls flat, but the stalking and harrassment angle does not.
Yeah, and the government has never lied to the American people.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What happens if the government decides that terrorism is no longer a problem, and they start to use TIA to root out dissidents and non-believers. It could happen, and it's happened before (Not with TIA, but in multiple instances with regards to the FBI.)
I find it strange that you really don't have a problem giving away large chunks (your credit card transactions, etc) of your private life to government for use in a profiling system about which they refuse to release any cocreate technical data (Ya know, gotta protect against the "Axis of Evil"). Would you be as unfettered as you are if it was some sort of implanted monitoring device? You wouldn't have any reason to worry, if you're not a terrorist.
This country was founded on the beliefs of personal freedoms, and a government by the people, for the people. The TIA system goes against almost every ideal that this country was founded on, by monitoring and essentially spying on it's own population. It's repugnant, and disgusting. It makes me very sad that something like this could even happen.
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the
Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for
the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me - and by
that time there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niemvller
posted by SweetJesus at 7:33 PM on December 14, 2002
Yeah, and the government has never lied to the American people.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What happens if the government decides that terrorism is no longer a problem, and they start to use TIA to root out dissidents and non-believers. It could happen, and it's happened before (Not with TIA, but in multiple instances with regards to the FBI.)
I find it strange that you really don't have a problem giving away large chunks (your credit card transactions, etc) of your private life to government for use in a profiling system about which they refuse to release any cocreate technical data (Ya know, gotta protect against the "Axis of Evil"). Would you be as unfettered as you are if it was some sort of implanted monitoring device? You wouldn't have any reason to worry, if you're not a terrorist.
This country was founded on the beliefs of personal freedoms, and a government by the people, for the people. The TIA system goes against almost every ideal that this country was founded on, by monitoring and essentially spying on it's own population. It's repugnant, and disgusting. It makes me very sad that something like this could even happen.
"In Germany, they first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the
Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for
the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. Then they came for me - and by
that time there was nobody left to speak up."
-Martin Niemvller
posted by SweetJesus at 7:33 PM on December 14, 2002
hama7: Poindexter is not a potential terrorist,
You're right, Poindexter isn't a potential terrorist. He's a confirmed terrorist, with a well known criminal record (scroll down to March 5, 1990). Sure, he didn't pull the trigger in central america, but he helped make sure those who did could afford to do so.
posted by jaded at 7:39 PM on December 14, 2002
You're right, Poindexter isn't a potential terrorist. He's a confirmed terrorist, with a well known criminal record (scroll down to March 5, 1990). Sure, he didn't pull the trigger in central america, but he helped make sure those who did could afford to do so.
posted by jaded at 7:39 PM on December 14, 2002
If you're not a terrorist, don't worry about it.
Of course, the President (or who he delegates) has the right to declare you a terrorist, and your only recourse at that point is a secret court where (hopefully eventually) you will appear without legal counsel or the right to demand the evidence or witnesses against you.
Boy, that would suck wouldn't it?
posted by Cerebus at 7:42 PM on December 14, 2002
Of course, the President (or who he delegates) has the right to declare you a terrorist, and your only recourse at that point is a secret court where (hopefully eventually) you will appear without legal counsel or the right to demand the evidence or witnesses against you.
Boy, that would suck wouldn't it?
posted by Cerebus at 7:42 PM on December 14, 2002
Today, the "power corrupts" syllogism has — like so many other things — been translated into a credo of personal morality. It insists that power makes you a bad person — i.e., self-aggrandizing, cruel, megalomaniacal, blind to all moral distinctions, and so on. And that just isn't true. -Jonah Goldberg's rather eloquent comments on the often misused quote.
Sure, he didn't pull the trigger in central america
Poindexter's history is only germane to this thread because it's being used as some kind of sneering rationalization for sophomorically harrassing citizens.
and your only recourse at that point is a secret court
That's a bit imaginative, to say the least. You forgot the mandatory allusions to '1984'.
posted by hama7 at 7:58 PM on December 14, 2002
Sure, he didn't pull the trigger in central america
Poindexter's history is only germane to this thread because it's being used as some kind of sneering rationalization for sophomorically harrassing citizens.
and your only recourse at that point is a secret court
That's a bit imaginative, to say the least. You forgot the mandatory allusions to '1984'.
posted by hama7 at 7:58 PM on December 14, 2002
Ask Jose Padilla whether the bit about recourse to a secret court is imaginative or not. He's a US citizen. He has not been charged with any crime, but has been held more or less incommunicado since June.
posted by kewms at 8:11 PM on December 14, 2002
posted by kewms at 8:11 PM on December 14, 2002
Ask Jose Padilla
I understand your point, but Jose Padilla may not be the most appropriate example.
posted by hama7 at 8:22 PM on December 14, 2002
I understand your point, but Jose Padilla may not be the most appropriate example.
posted by hama7 at 8:22 PM on December 14, 2002
Sure, he didn't pull the trigger in central america
Poindexter's history is only germane to this thread because it's being used as some kind of sneering rationalization for sophomorically harassing citizens.
and your only recourse at that point is a secret court
That's a bit imaginative, to say the least. You forgot the mandatory allusions to '1984'.
Why don't you address the points at hand instead of dismissing them as if they have no base in reality? The fact is, is that the appointed head of TIA is a convicted multiple felon (even though he has immunity, that doesn't take away the fact he was convicted of lying to congress). The fact is that there are secret terrorism courts, where you have no right to an attorney, and the government doesn't have to tell you why you're charged, and can hold you indefinitely.
This is not a book, it's the real world (At least in America).
And on another note, my quote was not misused. I wouldn't trust Poindexter as far as I could throw him (I don't have much upper body strength, so I probably couldn't throw him that far.) He's a liar, and a crook. I wouldn't trust him to cut my lawn. He abused his power once, and I see no reason why he wouldn't do it again. After all, he got away with it the first time.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:34 PM on December 14, 2002
Poindexter's history is only germane to this thread because it's being used as some kind of sneering rationalization for sophomorically harassing citizens.
and your only recourse at that point is a secret court
That's a bit imaginative, to say the least. You forgot the mandatory allusions to '1984'.
Why don't you address the points at hand instead of dismissing them as if they have no base in reality? The fact is, is that the appointed head of TIA is a convicted multiple felon (even though he has immunity, that doesn't take away the fact he was convicted of lying to congress). The fact is that there are secret terrorism courts, where you have no right to an attorney, and the government doesn't have to tell you why you're charged, and can hold you indefinitely.
This is not a book, it's the real world (At least in America).
And on another note, my quote was not misused. I wouldn't trust Poindexter as far as I could throw him (I don't have much upper body strength, so I probably couldn't throw him that far.) He's a liar, and a crook. I wouldn't trust him to cut my lawn. He abused his power once, and I see no reason why he wouldn't do it again. After all, he got away with it the first time.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:34 PM on December 14, 2002
Poindexter's history is only germane to this thread because it's being used as some kind of sneering rationalization for sophomorically harassing citizens.
versus using the war on terror as some kind of straight-faced rationalization?
Why don't you address the points at hand instead of dismissing them as if they have no base in reality?
informed conservatives bring something to the discussion. unfortunately, hama7 is not one of them. his responses have a pull-string emptiness. fortunately there are smarter conservatives out there.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:38 PM on December 14, 2002
versus using the war on terror as some kind of straight-faced rationalization?
Why don't you address the points at hand instead of dismissing them as if they have no base in reality?
informed conservatives bring something to the discussion. unfortunately, hama7 is not one of them. his responses have a pull-string emptiness. fortunately there are smarter conservatives out there.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:38 PM on December 14, 2002
informed conservatives bring something to the discussion.
What discussion? Snickering up your sleeve about harrassing a private citizen and posting his phone number in an article while decrying the invasion of privacy is laughably hypocritical, at best.
posted by hama7 at 8:48 PM on December 14, 2002
What discussion? Snickering up your sleeve about harrassing a private citizen and posting his phone number in an article while decrying the invasion of privacy is laughably hypocritical, at best.
posted by hama7 at 8:48 PM on December 14, 2002
>>I understand your point, but Jose Padilla may not be the most appropriate example.<<
Why not? I'm not saying Padilla isn't a very bad guy. I'm not even saying he isn't a terrorist. But the government is asserting the right to hold him indefinitely without having to show a judge or jury any evidence to justify his incarceration. The potential for everything from honest mistakes to outright abuse of that kind of power is staggering, and ought to scare small government libertarians on the right just as badly as it scares civil libertarians on the left.
posted by kewms at 8:58 PM on December 14, 2002
Why not? I'm not saying Padilla isn't a very bad guy. I'm not even saying he isn't a terrorist. But the government is asserting the right to hold him indefinitely without having to show a judge or jury any evidence to justify his incarceration. The potential for everything from honest mistakes to outright abuse of that kind of power is staggering, and ought to scare small government libertarians on the right just as badly as it scares civil libertarians on the left.
posted by kewms at 8:58 PM on December 14, 2002
What discussion?
The discussion you've been posting to for over an hour. You brought up some points, some people made counter-arguments, and you dismissed them. So in a sense, for you, it was more of a way one conversation (which is maybe why you forgot you were having it) For the rest of us, it was akin to arguing with a wall. A dismissive, vitriolic wall.
So, if you can't make a concise argument for what you believe in, and address the points which are counter to your argument within this post, then its obvious that you have nothing of importance to say.
I'd like to hear what you have to say, and I hope you can address some of my points. Otherwise, I just spent an hour arguing with a wall.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:59 PM on December 14, 2002
The discussion you've been posting to for over an hour. You brought up some points, some people made counter-arguments, and you dismissed them. So in a sense, for you, it was more of a way one conversation (which is maybe why you forgot you were having it) For the rest of us, it was akin to arguing with a wall. A dismissive, vitriolic wall.
So, if you can't make a concise argument for what you believe in, and address the points which are counter to your argument within this post, then its obvious that you have nothing of importance to say.
I'd like to hear what you have to say, and I hope you can address some of my points. Otherwise, I just spent an hour arguing with a wall.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:59 PM on December 14, 2002
Public Servants collecting, organizing, analyzing and storing private data, while hoping to keep the details of their own lives out of the hands of others is laughably hypocritical, at best.
posted by websavvy at 8:59 PM on December 14, 2002
posted by websavvy at 8:59 PM on December 14, 2002
Otherwise, I just spent an hour arguing with a wall.
No, actually you just wasted an hour on a newsy partisan post/ conspiracy theory/ practical joke.
Public Servants collecting, organizing, analyzing and storing private data
"on suspected terrorists" seems so have been conveniently omitted in that dashedly incisive observation.
posted by hama7 at 9:26 PM on December 14, 2002
No, actually you just wasted an hour on a newsy partisan post/ conspiracy theory/ practical joke.
Public Servants collecting, organizing, analyzing and storing private data
"on suspected terrorists" seems so have been conveniently omitted in that dashedly incisive observation.
posted by hama7 at 9:26 PM on December 14, 2002
No, actually you just wasted an hour on a newsy partisan post/ conspiracy theory/ practical joke.
No, I spent an hour trying in vain to get a logical opinion out of someone who is obviously just trolling around looking to get into ideological arguments with liberals.
I'm sorry, but that's just idiotic.
It's sad, but I've given you more than a few chances to just explain what it is exactly that you find so great, and wonderful about TIA. You haven't even come close, and it's pretty clear that you don't even want to try. You're a troll, and worse than that, you're a troll trying to hide behind a mask of supposed intelligence and conservative thought. Kinda pathetic.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:40 PM on December 14, 2002
No, I spent an hour trying in vain to get a logical opinion out of someone who is obviously just trolling around looking to get into ideological arguments with liberals.
I'm sorry, but that's just idiotic.
It's sad, but I've given you more than a few chances to just explain what it is exactly that you find so great, and wonderful about TIA. You haven't even come close, and it's pretty clear that you don't even want to try. You're a troll, and worse than that, you're a troll trying to hide behind a mask of supposed intelligence and conservative thought. Kinda pathetic.
posted by SweetJesus at 9:40 PM on December 14, 2002
Hama7, the wilful stupidity that you display is either fine trolling or an utter shame.
These pricks aren't going to get a list of "suspected terrorists" and start working their electronic magic. They'll be trolling through the waters of data, looking for things that are "suspicious". To the wunderkinds who are looking for "terrorism" these days, "suspicious" includes respected Canadian authors, people who want to clip their nails after a plane trip, attractive women, and on and on...
To pretend that the agenda that will guide this winnowing of information is purely concerned with "stopping terrorism" is ridiculously optimistic.
posted by websavvy at 9:43 PM on December 14, 2002
These pricks aren't going to get a list of "suspected terrorists" and start working their electronic magic. They'll be trolling through the waters of data, looking for things that are "suspicious". To the wunderkinds who are looking for "terrorism" these days, "suspicious" includes respected Canadian authors, people who want to clip their nails after a plane trip, attractive women, and on and on...
To pretend that the agenda that will guide this winnowing of information is purely concerned with "stopping terrorism" is ridiculously optimistic.
posted by websavvy at 9:43 PM on December 14, 2002
Kinda pathetic.
I'm not sure you're counting, but in your last two posts alone there were nine seperate personal insults, directed toward me. Frankly, I've come come across this pretty often, so I won't hold it against you, and I'm sure you didn't really mean it, anyway.
But I wouldn't say that those are the actions of one who purports to have an interest in "discussion".
Hama7, the wilful stupidity that you display
Nice talking with you too. Have an nice day.
posted by hama7 at 9:52 PM on December 14, 2002
I'm not sure you're counting, but in your last two posts alone there were nine seperate personal insults, directed toward me. Frankly, I've come come across this pretty often, so I won't hold it against you, and I'm sure you didn't really mean it, anyway.
But I wouldn't say that those are the actions of one who purports to have an interest in "discussion".
Hama7, the wilful stupidity that you display
Nice talking with you too. Have an nice day.
posted by hama7 at 9:52 PM on December 14, 2002
I'm not sure you're counting, but in your last two posts alone there were nine separate personal insults, directed toward me. Frankly, I've come come across this pretty often, so I won't hold it against you, and I'm sure you didn't really mean it, anyway.
If you don't want to be painted as an idiotic, pathetic, dismissive, vitriolic troll who is looking to get into ideological arguments with liberals, and as nothing interesting to say, then don't act like it. (Did I miss anything?)
I was interested in a "discussion". You weren't. You made it pretty clear when you didn't answer any questions, and instead, posted semi-snarky (and weak) "jokes" dismissing whatever the point of the post was. I've given up on having an interesting, enlightening conversation with you. So fuck it. I'm calling it as I see it.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:07 PM on December 14, 2002
If you don't want to be painted as an idiotic, pathetic, dismissive, vitriolic troll who is looking to get into ideological arguments with liberals, and as nothing interesting to say, then don't act like it. (Did I miss anything?)
I was interested in a "discussion". You weren't. You made it pretty clear when you didn't answer any questions, and instead, posted semi-snarky (and weak) "jokes" dismissing whatever the point of the post was. I've given up on having an interesting, enlightening conversation with you. So fuck it. I'm calling it as I see it.
posted by SweetJesus at 10:07 PM on December 14, 2002
"on suspected terrorists" seems so have been conveniently omitted in that dashedly incisive observation.
i'm beginning to think hama7 is a preteen masquerading as an adult. his reading aptitude -- or rather, lack thereof -- is a dead giveaway.
dude. what planet are you living on? do you follow the news at all? total information awareness won't be directed solely at suspected terrorists -- it's going to be a blanket surveillance operation targeting every grandma, toddler and jerk web troll in the realm. period. including you.
posted by donkeyschlong at 10:25 PM on December 14, 2002
i'm beginning to think hama7 is a preteen masquerading as an adult. his reading aptitude -- or rather, lack thereof -- is a dead giveaway.
dude. what planet are you living on? do you follow the news at all? total information awareness won't be directed solely at suspected terrorists -- it's going to be a blanket surveillance operation targeting every grandma, toddler and jerk web troll in the realm. period. including you.
posted by donkeyschlong at 10:25 PM on December 14, 2002
I wish I could watch *one* discussion online that didn't turn into a bitchy, childish catfight. It seems that internet users can't go five posts without resorting to arguments about how someone argues, rather than what someone argues.
posted by armoured-ant at 11:22 PM on December 15, 2002
posted by armoured-ant at 11:22 PM on December 15, 2002
And I am annoyed by people that go into a thread just to post how annoyed they are by people not adding to the thread.
The thing about getting information about 'suspected terrorists' only is that there isn't a magical switch that gathers information only about them, and only when needed. You filter out what you need when you need it, but, in the end, you are still filtering it from a pool of information that has Joe-everyman's credit history in it.
if Mr. X all of a sudden is deemed 'suspicious' and you want to know what he's been up to for the last year, you need to have that information be available. You get that by collecting data about everyone -- and access it only when deemed necessary. And that is ripe for abuse.
posted by mkn at 12:55 PM on December 16, 2002
The thing about getting information about 'suspected terrorists' only is that there isn't a magical switch that gathers information only about them, and only when needed. You filter out what you need when you need it, but, in the end, you are still filtering it from a pool of information that has Joe-everyman's credit history in it.
if Mr. X all of a sudden is deemed 'suspicious' and you want to know what he's been up to for the last year, you need to have that information be available. You get that by collecting data about everyone -- and access it only when deemed necessary. And that is ripe for abuse.
posted by mkn at 12:55 PM on December 16, 2002
« Older RTFA | Modern Character Actors Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by RichLyon at 2:07 PM on December 14, 2002