DARPA's Simple Plan to Track Targets Everywhere

[INRM]

Darpa’s Simple Plan to Track Targets Everywhere
URL: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/darpas-simple-plan-to-track-targets-everywhere/

Most confusing briefing ever? Not just. It’s also a sketch of Pentagon far-out research arm Darpa’s plan to track down and tag “elusive targets” — adversaries who can move, hide and blend in with cluttered environments. And that means more than just next-generation sensors that can penetrate foliage or peer inside “urban canyons.” It means stitching together information collected by different sensors to track a moving object.

Darpa’s 2009 strategic plan offers a fascinating overview of the different approaches the agency is taking to better track and identify these elusive targets. Some of these, like the Forester foliage- penetrating radar, tackle a specific problem: detecting enemy troops moving under the cover of dense jungle canopy. But another program, called NetTrack, would provide more persistent reconnaissance by linking together and comparing information from different sensors to track a target, even if it moves behind a solid obstruction.

The NetTrack overview on the Darpa website gives few details, but the strategic plan gives a better idea of how it might work. Using software tools, the system could stitch together information from a variety of sensors (synthetic aperture radar, optical, video, acoustic sensors, moving target indicators), and hand off to the right platform when appropriate. For instance, if a Predator lost a video feed on a vehicle that entered a forest, the networked system would cue a laser radar sensor to search for the target. Fusing or comparing sensor information can also help map out better routes for surveillance aircraft to ensure full-time coverage.


Am I really the only one who sees how this could easily be used to spy on innocent American citizens (and probably with greater ease than with any enemy)?

Big Brother here we come...


INRM

[INRM]

I really like some of the replies to this particular site. Quite observant, astute, and in regards to the first reply, quite sarcastic...

StrangeLovian,
Cool! Now add autonomous decision-making capabilities to this system and tie it in with offensive drones and land robots, and you’ve got Skynet 1.0. Humans are simply too slow to be part of the decision cycles of systems like these; our days of being in control are clearly numbered. Robot power!

WayPastHadEnough,
No where to run, nowhere to hide. How can anyone be stupid enough to think this is ‘cool’ and to pretend it could never be used against them.


INRM

[Ziggurat]

Am I really the only one who sees how this could easily be used to spy on innocent American citizens (and probably with greater ease than with any enemy)?

Yes, INRM, you are the only one. As usual.

Big Brother here we come...

You say that about everything DARPA does. You've become chicken little. If you ever happen to come across something that is truly problematic, no one will pay you any attention.

[SkeptiChick]

Isn't this best suited to the CT forum? o.O

[shadron]

Yup, agree with Ziggurat. You're the only one.

No where to run, nowhere to hide. How can anyone be stupid enough to think this is ‘cool’ and to pretend it could never be used against them.What, you don't ever live at your address? Answer your phones? You think the local police are going to order up a NetTrack Strike against you to serve a subpoena? When was the last time you had to fend off a JDAM attack?

[geni]

Yup, agree with Ziggurat. You're the only one.

What, you don't ever live at your address? Answer your phones? You think the local police are going to order up a NetTrack Strike against you to serve a subpoena? When was the last time you had to fend off a JDAM attack?

The issue is that the cost of the tech will fall which means that you eventualy hit the point where haveing a track on everyone does result in a significant rescources drain. Sure the civilian version would be pretty spotty since it would have to rely on fixed sensors (mostly CCTV) but basic outlines could be built up. Or more specific ones in certain enviroments such as stores that want more info on customer behavior.

You may or may not view this as a problem.

[CapelDodger]

I really like some of the replies to this particular site.

I'm not at all surprised.

Quite observant, astute, and in regards to the first reply, quite sarcastic...

Sarcasm is not a positive. Irony is (but I doubt you do irony).


WayPastHadEnough,


No where to run, nowhere to hide. How can anyone be stupid enough to think this is ‘cool’ and to pretend it could never be used against them.

It has never been cool to think that everybody's looking at you.

[CapelDodger]

Yes, INRM, you are the only one. As usual.

That's one way of getting the attention INRM so obviously craves :).

[UncaYimmy]

Am I really the only one who sees how this could easily be used to spy on innocent American citizens (and probably with greater ease than with any enemy)?

It's happened before.


http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c264/Frankfurter4444/binoculars.jpg

[Travis]

Sigh....for the last time INRM, the ability to conduct surveillance does not mean anyone is using it for thought control ala 1984. They used rats in 1984 too, are we to claim that any government purchase of rats is the first step to Room 101?

[INRM]

Ever seen the movie "Enemy of the State"?


Travis,

I never said anything about "thought control". I was talking about surveillance.

[Corsair 115]

Ever seen the movie "Enemy of the State"?


You do realize, don't you, that Hollywood movies are, even at the best of times, only distantly related to reality?

[shadron]

The issue is that the cost of the tech will fall which means that you eventualy hit the point where haveing a track on everyone does result in a significant rescources drain. Sure the civilian version would be pretty spotty since it would have to rely on fixed sensors (mostly CCTV) but basic outlines could be built up. Or more specific ones in certain enviroments such as stores that want more info on customer behavior.

You may or may not view this as a problem.

If the question here is whether it will become more possible to track individuals in a normal urban/suburban setting, you hardly need an article about new technologies being used in the battlefield to guess that, yes, it is going to become a lot more possible in the future. Whether that will become reality or not is, of course, a political question. It is not a really a technological problem.

I don't find it likely that a technology that depends on multiple flying surveillance platforms, satellite data links, multiple ground stations and unmanned drones will be used to track civilians for no better reason than to keep track of them.

Given that, then, what do you want to do? Deny this ability to the soldiers in the field because you're scarred that your very own local police force will want to know where you may be some time in the future? This is DARPA's warrant, is it not? Don't you have enough control over what the police within your own political purview do with the money you give them? If not, you have much bigger problems that what this technology can do to you, and perhaps you should be worrying about that.

[BenBurch]

Seems to me if the Government is hunting for you, you ALREADY got problems. The fact that they have technology to make it easier does not address that first problem, now, does it? You didn't lose all your freedoms the moment all cops had 2-way radio did you?

[geni]

If the question here is whether it will become more possible to track individuals in a normal urban/suburban setting, you hardly need an article about new technologies being used in the battlefield to guess that, yes, it is going to become a lot more possible in the future. Whether that will become reality or not is, of course, a political question. It is not a really a technological problem.

It is a technological problem at the moment.


I don't find it likely that a technology that depends on multiple flying surveillance platforms, satellite data links, multiple ground stations and unmanned drones will be used to track civilians for no better reason than to keep track of them.

In a modern urban enviroment that isn't really needed. Lock a person to locations through credit card transations then start following them through fixed CCTV. Your biggest problem is networking the CCTV cameras and sorting out the facial recognition issues.


Given that, then, what do you want to do? Deny this ability to the soldiers in the field because you're scarred that your very own local police force will want to know where you may be some time in the future? This is DARPA's warrant, is it not?

I didn't claim to have a solution.


Don't you have enough control over what the police within your own political purview do with the money you give them?

On the basis that the UK police have quietly been constructing a nation wide number plate tracking system probably not.

[geni]

Seems to me if the Government is hunting for you, you ALREADY got problems. The fact that they have technology to make it easier does not address that first problem, now, does it? You didn't lose all your freedoms the moment all cops had 2-way radio did you?

Traditional techniques of tracking people use up considerable rescources. That alone places some limits on their abuse. Take that away and existing issues get worse.

[shadron]

It is a technological problem at the moment.

I don't really think it is. Could we do it right now? No - but within 5 to 10 years? Almost certainly. As you say, for civilians it is mostly CCTV coordination, and if the political will says we must do it, then we likely will. The technology won't be in the way; it is advancing apace, perhaps too quickly to fully assess all the ramifications.

In a modern urban enviroment that isn't really needed. Lock a person to locations through credit card transations then start following them through fixed CCTV. Your biggest problem is networking the CCTV cameras and sorting out the facial recognition issues.

Given that, then, what do you want to do? Deny this ability to the soldiers in the field because you're scarred that your very own local police force will want to know where you may be some time in the future? This is DARPA's warrant, is it not?
I didn't claim to have a solution.I meant those as questions to INRM, actually. He was the one being paranoid over battlefield intelligence enhancements.

On the basis that the UK police have quietly been constructing a nation wide number plate tracking system probably not.OK, on that basis I think the problem is not to worry about what DARPA is doing on the battlefield - that technological battle is already lost, the djinn (sorry!) can't be put back into the bottle, and there is nothing earth-shatteringly new in the technology anyway. What needs to happen is to get the political overview and restrictions on police use in place, if that is deemed necessary. Get there before some hawkish politician decides the issue for you, on your behalf "for your own safety, of course", such as happened in our own recent past in the US.

[BenBurch]

Traditional techniques of tracking people use up considerable rescources. That alone places some limits on their abuse. Take that away and existing issues get worse.

They don't need a warrant to place a GPS tracker on your car, and have been doing that for several years now...

[shadron]

It is a technological problem at the moment.

I don't really think it is. Could we do it right now? No - but within 5 to 10 years? Almost certainly. As you say, for civilians it is mostly CCTV coordination, and if the political will says we must do it, then we likely will. The technology won't be in the way; it is advancing apace, perhaps too quickly to fully assess all the ramifications.

In a modern urban enviroment that isn't really needed. Lock a person to locations through credit card transations then start following them through fixed CCTV. Your biggest problem is networking the CCTV cameras and sorting out the facial recognition issues.

...

On the basis that the UK police have quietly been constructing a nation wide number plate tracking system probably not.

OK, on that basis I think the problem is no to worry about what DARPA is doing on the battlefield - that technological battle is already lost, the djinn (sorry!) can't be put back into the bottle, and there is nothing earth-shatteringly new in the technology anyway. What needs to happen is to get the political overview and restricions on police use in place, if that is deemed necessary. Get there before some hawkish politician decides the issue for you, on your behalf "for your own safety, of course", such as happened in our own recent past in he US.

[geni]

They don't need a warrant to place a GPS tracker on your car, and have been doing that for several years now...

Still takes time and effort. You can't for example just pull up a database and ask it for every car see outside the local games workshop and then start sending blackmail letters.

[BenBurch]

Any mass of data such as something that could track EVERYTHING is so huge that it takes considerable time and effort to find ANYTHING in it. I don't think you have a concept how huge that is, or how impossible it is for it to be processed in any meaningful way except through a focus on a single area for specific sparse targets.

[geni]

Any mass of data such as something that could track EVERYTHING is so huge that it takes considerable time and effort to find ANYTHING in it. I don't think you have a concept how huge that is, or how impossible it is for it to be processed in any meaningful way except through a focus on a single area for specific sparse targets.

Not really. Your bank can keep track of every charge made to your credit card. The london congestion charge system can keep track of every car entering certian parts of london. Assumeing the database is set up fairly well there is little reason to worry about infotmation overload.

[BenBurch]

Not really. Your bank can keep track of every charge made to your credit card. The london congestion charge system can keep track of every car entering certian parts of london. Assumeing the database is set up fairly well there is little reason to worry about infotmation overload.

A tiny number of data points compared to reality.

[INRM]

Corsair 115,

You do realize, don't you, that Hollywood movies are, even at the best of times, only distantly related to reality?

Yes, I am aware of that. However, while not 100% realistic, science-fiction sometimes does has a way of being prophetic...


INRM

[Travis]

Ever seen the movie "Enemy of the State"?


Travis,

I never said anything about "thought control". I was talking about surveillance.

I brought up "thought control" because you brought up 1984. In that book surveillance is done for the specific reason of assisting in mass thought control. So, without the "thought control" aspect mass surveillance is just a massive amount of surveillance that is neither pernicious or the first steps to Oceania.

[Klimax]

Darpa’s Simple Plan to Track Targets Everywhere
URL: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/darpas-simple-plan-to-track-targets-everywhere/




Am I really the only one who sees how this could easily be used to spy on innocent American citizens (and probably with greater ease than with any enemy)?

Big Brother here we come...


INRM

Unimpressed. You may want to track millions,but costs of operation would be really large.

And then bandwith needed and required frequencies are going to be obstacles as well not to mention that it could be easly prone to local jamming as for effective tracking and recording you'll need every spot covered and lot of relays.

And last proccessing even when parallelized is still most probably NP-complete...

[paximperium]

Dude. People here are skeptical, not paranoid.

[wackyvorlon]

Big Brother here we come...



You seem to reside in the United States. I was wondering, are you registered with the Selective Service?

[paximperium]

You seem to reside in the United States. I was wondering, are you registered with the Selective Service?
INRM, do you have a Social Security Number?

[wackyvorlon]

I brought up "thought control" because you brought up 1984. In that book surveillance is done for the specific reason of assisting in mass thought control. So, without the "thought control" aspect mass surveillance is just a massive amount of surveillance that is neither pernicious or the first steps to Oceania.

It also produces enormous amounts of useless trivia. I am reminded of some of the files the KGB compiled in the Soviet Union, which have now been made publically available. One woman has 16 volumes of 3" binders that have been compiled on her, including the most useless data.

Organizations which do not encourage a culture of questioning ideas tend to wander into completely ridiculous realms. cf. CIA research projects regarding weaponizing depilatories, the KGB being reduced to the level of silly pranksters, letting the air of a woman's bicycle tires while she shops for groceries.

EDIT: Correction, it was the Stasi:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-02/ff_stasi?currentPage=all

[INRM]

Travis,

I brought up "thought control" because you brought up 1984. In that book surveillance is done for the specific reason of assisting in mass thought control. So, without the "thought control" aspect mass surveillance is just a massive amount of surveillance that is neither pernicious or the first steps to Oceania.

Well, if you did have the ability to monitor everybody it would help in the ability to control and manipulate the public.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be done through mind control though. Simple fear would do, knowing the government would know everything you're doing all the time is sufficient.

If one had knowledge on everybody, the government could always outmaneuver the public, regardless of their will. Even if they want something, the government knowing always what they desire and intend could quickly take measures to avoid the public being able to get their way. One could also do various things to simply pacify the public to shut them up, then the government could continue to do what it wants with temporary confidence in it restored.


Klimax,

Unimpressed. You may want to track millions,but costs of operation would be really large.

And then bandwith needed and required frequencies are going to be obstacles as well not to mention that it could be easly prone to local jamming as for effective tracking and recording you'll need every spot covered and lot of relays.

I do remember DARPA previously had plans to place an entire city under 24 hour watch...

The idea was to link loads of cameras up to central computers, with algorithms to look for suspicious behavior, and facial ID technology. Upon ID-ing a suspect, or identifying suspicious behavior it would automatically alert the authorities.

From what I remember to do it, the technology required could be found at a good computer store...

And last proccessing even when parallelized is still most probably NP-complete...

What does that mean "processing, even when parllelized"?


Pax Imperium,

INRM, do you have a Social Security Number?

Of course, all American citizens do... I'm not going to tell you what it is obviously other than to say it has nine-digits.


Wacky Vorlon,

It also produces enormous amounts of useless trivia. I am reminded of some of the files the KGB compiled in the Soviet Union, which have now been made publically available. One woman has 16 volumes of 3" binders that have been compiled on her, including the most useless data.

EDIT: Correction, it was the Stasi:

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/16-02/ff_stasi?currentPage=all

Modern day there are means to use computers to prioritize all this data gathered so that the most important data could easily be found.

I'm not a computer expert, but even I know of this.


INRM

[theprestige]

Yay! Another werewolf!

[Wolrab]

DARPA had to come up with something. All their resources, human and electronic, were found out by the GANGSTALKING crowd: http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/

What used to take hundreds of billions of dollars and all of humanity (minus the TARGETED VICTIMS, [cue ominous music] of course) to track otherwise normal, albeit paranoid schizophrenic, citizens, will now be done via satellites and cctv.
The Gangstalkers finding out that everyone but them was hired to spy on the targeted individuals led directly to the world's economic mess because we were all laid off from our surveillance jobs en mass. Damn those meddling kids.

[Travis]

Travis,
Well, if you did have the ability to monitor everybody it would help in the ability to control and manipulate the public.

It wouldn't necessarily have to be done through mind control though. Simple fear would do, knowing the government would know everything you're doing all the time is sufficient.

If one had knowledge on everybody, the government could always outmaneuver the public, regardless of their will. Even if they want something, the government knowing always what they desire and intend could quickly take measures to avoid the public being able to get their way. One could also do various things to simply pacify the public to shut them up, then the government could continue to do what it wants with temporary confidence in it restored.

INRM

All nice and scary but you have yet to 1)demonstrate this tracking technology is capable of such detailed surveillance 2)propose some method where the enormous amount of data can be collated into something meaningful and 3)provide some evidence that anyone is proposing to use this system for nefarious purposes.

[arthwollipot]

Am I really the only one who sees how this could easily be used to spy on innocent American citizens (and probably with greater ease than with any enemy)?INRM, what makes you think you're important enough for the government to be in the least bit interested in you?

[Klimax]

Klimax,

I do remember DARPA previously had plans to place an entire city under 24 hour watch...

The idea was to link loads of cameras up to central computers, with algorithms to look for suspicious behavior, and facial ID technology. Upon ID-ing a suspect, or identifying suspicious behavior it would automatically alert the authorities.

From what I remember to do it, the technology required could be found at a good computer store...


You can interlink how much you want but so long it is wireles it can be jammed and since you/they are talking/thinking about small devices their communication range is small so devices will have to either use relayes or themselves be capable of relaying. Find device handling number of other devices,jam it and until network reconfigures to bypass jammed device area is "blackouted" ; do large jamming and it may be impossible to bypass it.

And it is increadibly easy to jam signal.Either you overpower it,inject false content or block signal itself ot everything.

Of course another vector of attack would be using directinal antenne connected to signal generator and sending pulses at device...

I use WiFi,frequency 2,3-,4GHz , directional antenne,yet different company using unauthorised equipment far overpowering my own AP is able to not only interfere (noise) but cause insertion of unkown packets. It is able to completely eliminate connection. (Difference of transmitter power is 0,1W against >0,1W)

Since the proposed or feared network will need omnidirectional transmitting capability,it will be far easier to overpower

As for privacy,there are various shielding materials and they are not illegal.
(Like this company: http://www.spectran.com/Shielding.shtml )


What does that mean "processing, even when parllelized"?

INRM

Looks like I made typo...
parallelized = using larger number of processors
processing = analyzis of data

They'd need several millions of processors or get breakthrough in NP-complete algoritmhs and problems.

[sanguine]

Modern day there are means to use computers to prioritize all this data gathered so that the most important data could easily be found.

I'm not a computer expert, but even I know of this.


Because you're not a computer expert, you think you know this.

The couple hundred folks working on DARPA-funded computational projects just down the hall from me are having a hell of a time getting computers to deal with real-world information that's significantly less complex and abundant than a "surveilling everyone" dataset.

It's worth recalling that DARPA projects have a high failure rate for their stated goals (although they often generate cool and useful spinoffs that aren't as ambitious). They shoot very high in an effort to generate transformational technologies that will help the American military out, but with the knowledge that this attempt will rarely succeed as planned.

[wackyvorlon]

Modern day there are means to use computers to prioritize all this data gathered so that the most important data could easily be found.

I'm not a computer expert, but even I know of this.


INRM

Here's the thing: I've been a network admin for about fifteen years now. Frankly, computers are *horrible* at that kind of thing. Anything that involves manipulating semantics. They are good at storing data, retrieving data, and they can prioritize data, if the data is very narrowly defined. But something like a person's movements or who they eat lunch with - a computer has no idea whether any of this is important. It's incredibly hard to make the computer pick out important stuff without getting a horrendous number of false positives.

[KingMerv00]

Am I really the only one who sees how this could easily be used to spy on innocent American citizens (and probably with greater ease than with any enemy)?

Let's say you're right and they assign an agent and millions of dollars worth of technology to track an innocent citizen:

------------------------------------------------------------------

DARPA Log 323986920-2
Surveillance Day 491

7:00AM: Subject wakes.

7:00AM - 7:30AM: Subject grooms and showers. Appears to dislike new cinnamon flavored Crest toothpaste. Acne on back has not improved.

7:31AM - Subject stubs toe on chair next to bathroom door. "*expletive deleted* CHAIR! Who *expletive deleted* put this *multiple expletives deleted* thing here!" Moves chair next to bed.

7:32AM - 7:45AM: Subject chooses to wear same pants for 12th day in a row. Panda tie chosen in spite of secret snickers of co-workers. Leaves fly down.

7:46AM - 8:15AM: Subject eats Froot Loops. 185 red, 209 Yellow, 188 blue, but only 152 green. (Perhaps out of respect for the holy color of Islam? *Terrorist Flag*)

8:16AM - 9:00AM: Subject commutes to work. Average speed, 4 mph. Subject's BP 190/120.

9:00AM - 9:04AM: Subject walks to desk. Exchanges glances with attractive secretary. Average speed 5 mph. Subject's BP 210/130.

9:05AM - 11:25AM: Subject stares blankly at stapler.

11:26AM - 1:03PM: Lunch break. Subject consumes sandwich WITHOUT ham. *Terrorist Flag*

1:04PM -1:06PM: Subject's supervisor enters lunchroom. Lectures subject on length of standard lunch breaks. Subject leaves. (Supervisor finds downed fly humorous.)

1:07PM - 1:25PM: Subject returns to desk. Average speed 0.5 mph.

1:26PM - 2:58PM: Subject stares blankly at staple remover.

2:59PM - 3:56PM: Subject disscusses exploits of Sayid Jarrah at water cooler. *Terrorist Flag* (Co-workers find downed fly humorous.)

3:57PM - 4:59PM: Subject stares blankly at staple.

5:00PM - 7:38PM: Subject commutes home. Average speed below instrument threshold. BP above instrument threshold.

7:39PM - 8:24PM: Subject once again fails to eat ham or hamlike food products. *Terrorist Flag*

8:25PM - 11:04PM: Subject activates DVD player. Stares blankly at Marla Maples.

11:05PM - 11:14PM: Subject disrobes. Notices fly. "*expletive deleted*"

11:15PM: Subject throws out cinnamon Crest toothpaste.

11:16PM: Subject walks to bed. Stubs toe. Moves chair next to bathroom door.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO ONE wants to spy on innocent people!

[UncaYimmy]

Let's say you're right and they assign an agent and millions of dollars worth of technology to track an innocent citizen:

NO ONE wants to spy on innocent people!

Rewrite the above except that the NSA agent is my wife's ex-boyfriend. Instead of staring at my stapler I peruse the Adult Services section of Craigslist. Lunch turns out to be an UncaYimmy sandwich with a couple of med school students earning tuition money. A week later my wife receives some photos in the mail.

It's not about the technology, which is why I posted the picture of the binoculars. All technology can be abused. The more intrusive the technology, the greater the potential for harm. The remedy, though, is one of policy and procedure. I recall reading an article last year that celebrities had their passport information viewed hundreds of times more often than ordinary citizens. That was a procedural problem, not technological.

[INRM]

UncaYimmy,

All technology can be abused. The more intrusive the technology, the greater the potential for harm.

Well that's kind of what I've been trying to say for awhile. I emphasized the key part in bold.


INRM

[theprestige]

UncaYimmy,



Well that's kind of what I've been trying to say for awhile. I emphasized the key part in bold.


INRM
Yes, but you keep ignoring the equal and opposite corollary, that the more intrusive the technology, the greater potential for help.

You also as a result keep failing to seriously consider and balance these two potentials.

[INRM]

ThePrestige,

Yes, but you keep ignoring the equal and opposite corollary, that the more intrusive the technology, the greater potential for help.

You also as a result keep failing to seriously consider and balance these two potentials.

I don't think that is a particularly good argument. In this particular case, I see far more potential for intrusion in a non-helpful way than in a helpful way.


INRM

[shadron]

ThePrestige,



I don't think that is a particularly good argument. In this particular case, I see far more potential for intrusion in a non-helpful way than in a helpful way.


INRM

Not to be catty here, but I doubt that you have ever been on a battlefield, so I would counsel some caution in coming to your conclusions. That is a bkind spot for you.

[INRM]

Shadron,

Point take, but you can't tell me that this stuff wouldn't inevitably end up being used against civilians for unethical purposes (monitoring dissidents and stuff).

Historically governments with enormous capabilities for intrusiveness have often mis-used them.


INRM

[UncaYimmy]

Historically governments with enormous capabilities for intrusiveness have often mis-used them.


Which is a political rather than scientific matter. Always has been and always will be.

[drkitten]

Shadron,

Point take, but you can't tell me that this stuff wouldn't inevitably end up being used against civilians for unethical purposes (monitoring dissidents and stuff)

Sure I can. NOTHING is inevitable.

And one of the best ways to make sure that this technology doesn't get misused is to develop it, monitor it, and develop countermeasures.

Another good way is simply to raise public consciousness about the issues.

But going into screaming irrational hysterical fits about the technology will do more harm than good.

And, yes, that's exactly how I characterize your opening post. A screaming irrational hysterical fit. You're screaming "wolf!" at any animal that walks past -- be it a dog, a cat, a sheep, or an ostrich.

Except that, as was pointed out on another thread, you're really screaming "werewolf!"

[shadron]

Shadron,

Point take, but you can't tell me that this stuff wouldn't inevitably end up being used against civilians for unethical purposes (monitoring dissidents and stuff).

Historically governments with enormous capabilities for intrusiveness have often mis-used them.


INRM

The point is, though, that you did not take that military use point of view into account before coming down against deploying the technology (not that I could tell, anyway), and I just cannot see that. Yes, it may get used by governments against civilians (Note: against - not for.) If that's the case, then these self-same civilians will have a grievance. In our democracy there are remedies, and I have faith they will be used. After all, the gov doesn't allow your police department to use all possible military technologies against you, does it? Why is that?

I think the positives outweigh the negatives here. Besides, as pointed out previously, none of this is breakthrough stuff; it will all eventually filter down, if not through the military then through business products. You can't stop it; just as Canute couldn't stop the sea.

"A wise commander never gives an order he knows will surely be ignored and he has no way of enforcing."

[Cuddles]

Historically governments with enormous capabilities for intrusiveness have often mis-used them.

So you're saying that historically there have been governments with enormous capabilities for intrusiveness? Even without any of the new technology you are so terrified of? So what exactly are you worrying about? Clearly it's possible to be enormously intrusive even with primitive technology, so it can't be the technology that is the problem.

[INRM]

Shadron,

Yeah, and the NSA isn't supposed to engage in large scale warrantless wiretapping, but it happened...

Do you really want a government that can monitor everything you do no matter where you go?

For the record, I'd like to make it clear that I'm a pretty scrupulous individual, I follow the law, and I rarely even speed. I still don't like the idea of having the government monitoring every action of my life no matter where I go.

I personally don't think it's psychologically healthy to live under such conditions (constant surveillance)...

I do not think the positives outweigh the negatives here, and to be honest I am getting quite annoyed with seemingly every technological development made by our government in the past few years being geared towards spying on larger and larger numbers of people in increasingly intrusive ways. Especially when my tax-payer dollars are feeding this (and paying taxes are compulsory), and our government has over the past years has been getting more and more lee-way to employ surveillance technology against civilians (Warrantless wiretapping, revisions made to FISA to make it easier to wiretap individuals, even in cases that don't have anything to do with foreign intelligence surveillance, the National Applications Office, which allows satellite data gathered by military and intelligence satellites to be shared with law-enforcement).


Cuddles,

Obviously, it's not just the technology -- human nature factors into the equation, and throughout history we've had leaders who have demonstrated a remarkable love of mass-surveillance.

I'm terrified of the fact that this technology would make it a hell of a lot easier. Previously governments didn't have the ability to track people over such a wide range of locations, or as many people all at once.

DARPA had a few years ago developed means to place an entire city under 24 hr watch, that's literally millions of people. Granted it was designed allegedly to secure foreign cities occupied by the military to protect them from sneak-attacks, but intelligence and defense experts said that it didn't seem to be particularly useful for that job but incredibly useful for domestic surveillance...


INRM
"The only way to have 100% safety is to have 0% freedom"

[shadron]

Shadron,

Yeah, and the NSA isn't supposed to engage in large scale warrantless wiretapping, but it happened...

That didn't happen in a vacuum, INRM. It happened in a rather massive over-reaction (IMHO) to a single, well planned terrorist incident. It is on it's way to being corrected, and perhaps it will be 50 years before the possibility can occur again (just as the safeguards built into banking after the depression took about 50 years to overcome.)

Do you really want a government that can monitor everything you do no matter where you go?Perhaps not, but it's just a little late to repeal telescopes, TV cameras, microphones and computers. With those, this technology is only a refinement. Face it, INRM, that's going to be your future, and the only thing standing in the way is political will against it being used inappropriately; the technology isn't anything above a gaggle of master degree candidates' abilities.

For the record, I'd like to make it clear that I'm a pretty scrupulous individual, I follow the law, and I rarely even speed. I still don't like the idea of having the government monitoring every action of my life no matter where I go.Don't doubt it, but also don't care. Irrelevant to argument.

I personally don't think it's psychologically healthy to live under such conditions (constant surveillance)...Oh, I don't know. Those who are conditioned for it probably wouldn't notice. We aren't used to it, but I think we could become to be. Is such surveliance best for mankind? I don't really think so either, but it depends a lot on what is done with the political overview. If it isn't oppressive, then it could pass. If it makes people feel safe, then I can see embrasure. People like to feel safe, whether it is good in the long run or not.

I do not think the positives outweigh the negatives here, and to be honest I am getting quite annoyed with seemingly every technological development made by our government in the past few years being geared towards spying on larger and larger numbers of people in increasingly intrusive ways. We'll have to agree to disagree on the former, I'm afraid. As for the latter, I see some room for a charge of paranoia. Some developments are intrusive (again because of the circumstances of the last 8 years), but certainly not every one; how do you score climate research in that way, or improved power reactor design, or better astrophysics? Planetary research? Ethanol research (regardless of it's appropriateness)? Virus and disease (particularly cancer) control? ...to name only a few areas, of course.

Especially when my tax-payer dollars are feeding this (and paying taxes are compulsory), and our government has over the past years has been getting more and more lee-way to employ surveillance technology against civilians (Warrantless wiretapping, revisions made to FISA to make it easier to wiretap individuals, even in cases that don't have anything to do with foreign intelligence surveillance, the National Applications Office, which allows satellite data gathered by military and intelligence satellites to be shared with law-enforcement).Sure, and where are these initiatives headed now (as in, the last year), and why? Is not democracy (and paranoia, I admit) reclaiming some of the lost ground here? I understand the NAO is under the legislative hammer as we speak. There are several bills in congress now to rework intelligence oversight. Why do you hate your congress critters? :)

INRM
"The only way to have 100% safety is to have 0% freedom"And vice versa. Can't we search for a happy medium?

[shadron]

Shadron,

Yeah, and the NSA isn't supposed to engage in large scale warrantless wiretapping, but it happened...

That didn't happen in a vacuum, INRM. It happened in a rather massive over-reaction (IMHO) to a single, well planned terrorist incident. It is on it's way to being corrected, and perhaps it will be 50 years before the possibility can occur again (just as the safeguards built into banking after the depression took about 50 years to overcome.)

Do you really want a government that can monitor everything you do no matter where you go?

Perhaps not, but it's just a little late to repeal telescopes, TV cameras, microphones and computers. With those, this technology is only a refinement. Face it, INRM, that's going to be your future, and the only thing standing in the way is political will against it being used; the technology isn't anything above a gaggle of master degree candidates' abilities.

For the record, I'd like to make it clear that I'm a pretty scrupulous individual, I follow the law, and I rarely even speed. I still don't like the idea of having the government monitoring every action of my life no matter where I go.

Don't doubt it, but also don't care. Irrelevant to argument.

I personally don't think it's psychologically healthy to live under such conditions (constant surveillance)...

Oh, I don't know. Those who are conditioned for it probably wouldn't notice. We aren't used to it, but I think we could become to be. Is that best for mankind? I don't really think so either, but it depends a lot on what is done with the overview. If it isn't oppressive, then it could pass. If it makes people feel safe, then I can see embrasure. People like to feel safe, whether it is good in the long run or not.

I do not think the positives outweigh the negatives here, and to be honest I am getting quite annoyed with seemingly every technological development made by our government in the past few years being geared towards spying on larger and larger numbers of people in increasingly intrusive ways.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the former, I'm afraid. As for the latter, I see some room for a charge of paranoia. Some developments are intrusive (again because of the circumstances of the last 8 years), but certainly not every one; how do you score climate research in that way, or improved power reactor design, or better astrophysics? Planetary research? Ethanol research (regardless of it's appropriateness)? Virus and disease (particularly cancer) control?

Especially when my tax-payer dollars are feeding this (and paying taxes are compulsory), and our government has over the past years has been getting more and more lee-way to employ surveillance technology against civilians (Warrantless wiretapping, revisions made to FISA to make it easier to wiretap individuals, even in cases that don't have anything to do with foreign intelligence surveillance, the National Applications Office, which allows satellite data gathered by military and intelligence satellites to be shared with law-enforcement).

Sure, and where are these headed now (as in, the last year), and why? Is not democracy (and paranoia, I admit) reclaiming some of the last ground here? I understand the NAO is under the lagislative hammer as we speak. There are several bills in congress now to rework intelligence oversight. Why do you hate your congress critters? :)

INRM
"The only way to have 100% safety is to have 0% freedom"

And vice versa. Can't we search for a happy medium?

[INRM]

Shadron,

I'm not asking that satellites, cameras, and telescopes be "repealed", I just don't think that DARPA's proposal to link all this stuff up and using complex algorithms to allow the government to be able to track anybody no matter where they go, anytime, anywhere.

[Klimax]

I'm not asking that satellites, cameras, and telescopes be "repealed", I just don't think that DARPA's proposal to link all this stuff up and using complex algorithms to allow the government to be able to track anybody no matter where they go, anytime, anywhere.

Do they have fairly good AI? Or at least broken through NP-complete problem?
Or at least got several supercomputers or huge number of regular high-performance computers?

Did they managed to get around of interference and how.(Respectively what frequencies they chose,so there is nobody else)

[INRM]

Klimax,

I wouldn't know any of that unless I worked for DARPA.


INRM

[Soapy Sam]

Am I really the only one who sees how this could easily be used to spy on innocent American citizens (and probably with greater ease than with any enemy)?

Big Brother here we come...
INRM


And, yes, that's exactly how I characterize your opening post. A screaming irrational hysterical fit. You're screaming "wolf!" at any animal that walks past -- be it a dog, a cat, a sheep, or an ostrich.



Am I really the only one who sees how this could be seen as a mild overreaction?

[TjW]

INRM:
It has come to my attention that not only is the government developing methods of coordinating sensors to track individuals, but that they already have technology, which, if used against civilians, will kill them dead.

Which of these two technologies should I be more concerned about?

[drkitten]

Do they have fairly good AI? Or at least broken through NP-complete problem?
Or at least got several supercomputers or huge number of regular high-performance computers?

Yes, no, and yes. You don't need to work for DARPA to know that. I have "fairly good AI" on my desktop, and supercomputers are astonishingly cheap. I have a supercomputer down the hall from me right now.

As to the NP-complete problem.... they're funding too much research into NP questions for them to have had a breakthrough on that scale. There's no reason for them to spend millions or billions to research questions to which they already know the answer.

[LarianLeQuella]

I like to secretly observe and tape paranoid people so I can watch their antics and laugh at them. :D

[Klimax]

Klimax,

I wouldn't know any of that unless I worked for DARPA.


INRM

There are ways how to estimate it as drkitten shows below.

Yes, no, and yes. You don't need to work for DARPA to know that. I have "fairly good AI" on my desktop, and supercomputers are astonishingly cheap. I have a supercomputer down the hall from me right now.

Power of course is not the only thing neccessary for this. Very good algoritms and such are still needed...

(And they may be for some cheap,but I have no way to get near one or for both universities I studied/study in)

As to the NP-complete problem.... they're funding too much research into NP questions for them to have had a breakthrough on that scale. There's no reason for them to spend millions or billions to research questions to which they already know the answer.

So,it looks like things are still far from completion. (And then there is still that prize for solution of NP-problem.)