NSA Seeks Holy Grail of Spy Technology

[INRM]

NSA Seeks Holy Grail of Spy Technology
http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/nsa-seeks-holy-grail-of-spy-technology/

The National Security Agency (NSA) is developing a tool that George Orwell’s Thought Police might have found useful: an artificial intelligence system designed to gain insight into what people are thinking.

With the entire Internet and thousands of databases for a brain, the device will be able to respond almost instantaneously to complex questions posed by intelligence analysts. As more and more data is collected — through phone calls, credit card receipts, social networks like Facebook and MySpace, GPS tracks, cell phone geolocation, Internet searches, Amazon book purchases, even E-Z Pass toll records — it may one day be possible to know not just where people are and what they are doing, but what and how they think.

The system is so potentially intrusive that at least one researcher has quit, citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability.

Getting Acquaint
Known as Aquaint, which stands for “Advanced QUestion Answering for INTelligence,” the project was run for many years by John Prange, an NSA scientist at the Advanced Research and Development Activity. Headquartered in Room 12A69 in the NSA’s Research and Engineer ing Building at 1 National Business Park, ARDA was set up by the agency to serve as a sort of intelligence community DARPA, the place where former Reagan national security advisor John Poindexter’s infamous Total Information Awareness project was born. [Editor’s note: TIA was a short-lived project founded in 2002 to apply information technology to counter terrorist and other threats to national security.] Later named the Disruptive Technology Office, ARDA has now morphed into the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA).

A sort of national laboratory for eavesdropping and other spycraft, IARPA will move into its new 120,000-square-foot home in 2009. The building will be part of the new M Square Research Park in College Park, Maryland. A mammoth two million-square-foot, 128-acre complex, it is operated in collaboration with the University of Maryland. “Their budget is classified, but I understand it’s very well funded,” said Brian Darmody, the*University of Maryland’s assistant vice president of research and economic development, referring to IARPA. “They’ll be in their own building here, and they’re going to grow. Their mission is expanding.”

If IARPA is the spy world’s DARPA, Aquaint may be the reincarnation of Poindexter’s TIA. After a briefing by NSA Director Michael Hayden, Vice President Dick Cheney, and CIA Director George Tenet of some of the NSA’s datamining programs in July 2003, Senator Jay Rockefeller IV, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a concerned letter to Cheney. “As I reflected on the meeting today,” he said, “John Poindexter’s TIA project sprung to mind, exacerbating my concern regard ing the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance.”

Thought policeman

A supersmart search engine, capable of answering complex questions such as “What were the major issues in the last 10 presidential elections?” would be very useful for the public. But that same capability in the hands of an agency like the NSA — absolutely secret, often above the law, resistant to oversight, and with access to petabytes of private information about Americans — could be a privacy and civil liberties nightmare. “We must not forget that the ultimate goal is to transfer research results into operational use,” said Aquaint project leader John Prange, in charge of information exploitation for IARPA.

Once up and running, the database of old newspapers could quickly be expanded to include an inland sea of personal information scooped up by the agency’s warrantless data suction hoses. Unregulated, they could ask it to determine which Americans might likely pose a security risk — or have sympathies toward a particular cause, such as the antiwar movement, as was done during the 1960s and 1970s. The Aquaint robospy might then base its decision on the type of books a person purchased online, or chat room talk, or websites visited — or a similar combination of data. Such a system would have an enormous chilling effect on everyone’s everyday activities — what will the Aquaint computer think if I buy this book, or go to that website, or make this comment? Will I be suspected of being a terrorist or a spy or a subversive?


I'd like to hear what people's opinions are regarding this?

[paximperium]

Cool. Just wait until the advertising companies get a hold of this...oh wait, they already have, it's called Google AdSense.

[Donal]

It is taking already available data, analyzing it, and making predictions.

You know humans have been doing that since they first started interacting, right?

The system is so potentially intrusive that at least one researcher has quit, citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability.

Weasel words. Please provide a name.

[drkitten]

I'd like to hear what people's opinions are regarding this?

I think that your gullibility and vulnerability to spin must make you a late-night infomercial author's dream. Between the ab machines and ShamWows, is it still possible to get into your house?

In more detail:


With the entire Internet and thousands of databases for a brain, the device will be able to respond almost instantaneously to complex questions

Wow. You mean, it's just like Google?

As more and more data is collected — through phone calls, credit card receipts, social networks like Facebook and MySpace, GPS tracks, cell phone geolocation, Internet searches, Amazon book purchases, even E-Z Pass toll records — it may one day be possible to know not just where people are and what they are doing, but what and how they think.

"May one day be possible" = spin and marketing hype.


The system is so potentially intrusive that at least one researcher has quit, citing concerns over the dangers in placing such a powerful weapon in the hands of a top-secret agency with little accountability.

Yes, but another unnamed researcher likes it so much that he's installed it in a secret underground cave from which he emerges at night in his underwear to battle supervillians like the Joker. Meaningless.




A supersmart search engine, capable of answering complex questions such as “What were the major issues in the last 10 presidential elections?” would be very useful for the public.

Damn straight. It's a $200 billion company that trades under the ticker GOOG.

But if NSA tries the same technology as Google, it's scary?


But that same capability in the hands of an agency like the NSA — absolutely secret, often above the law, resistant to oversight, and with access to petabytes of private information about Americans — could be a privacy and civil liberties nightmare.

.... I guess so.

[kedo1981]

I’d bet you a twenty that you could go back 30 years/40years/50years and so on, and with only having to change a few words and concepts would find the exact fake article making the same claim.
The conspiracy F-tards will never change

[fuelair]

I’d bet you a twenty that you could go back 30 years/40years/50years and so on, and with only having to change a few words and concepts would find the exact fake article making the same claim.
The conspiracy F-tards will never change

Actually, it is overwhelming inability to understand that throughout history governments have always been able to spy on/kill/find pretty much anyone they chose to, if they chose to (at least in their area of control). Only the methods have changed.

[Drudgewire]

The conspiracy F-tards will never change


What? You mean a site named "dark government" with a "New World Order" graphic in their banner can't be objective? :p

[INRM]

fuelair,

True, however the means to do it are potentially more pervasive than in the past, with the ability to link all that data together.

[paximperium]

fuelair,

True, however the means to do it are potentially more pervasive than in the past, with the ability to link all that data together.
You mean this?

Wolfram|Alpha's long-term goal is to make all systematic knowledge immediately computable and accessible to everyone. We aim to collect and curate all objective data; implement every known model, method, and algorithm; and make it possible to compute whatever can be computed about anything. Our goal is to build on the achievements of science and other systematizations of knowledge to provide a single source that can be relied on by everyone for definitive answers to factual queries.
Wolfram|Alpha aims to bring expert-level knowledge and capabilities to the broadest possible range of people—spanning all professions and education levels. Our goal is to accept completely free-form input, and to serve as a knowledge engine that generates powerful results and presents them with maximum clarity.
Wolfram|Alpha is an ambitious, long-term intellectual endeavor that we intend will deliver increasing capabilities over the years and decades to come. With a world-class team and participation from top outside experts in countless fields, our goal is to create something that will stand as a major milestone of 21st century intellectual achievement.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/

[fuelair]

fuelair,

True, however the means to do it are potentially more pervasive than in the past, with the ability to link all that data together.

Only as a technical matter - for all practical purposesit has just about always been possible - there's just a lot more data to process (I leave it to the student to discuss the reasons for that and the nature of the materials/ persons needing to be surveiled):).

[Skeptic]

Some idiots sometimes ask me, "how do you know what I think? Are you psychic?!". Well, it has something to do with the words that come out of their mouth (or keyboard).

[JoeyDonuts]

I'm fairly certain there's already a hefty amount of Googling going on at the NSA. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if there was some contract work going on for things like Intelink.

[Soapy Sam]

If they just send me money, I'll tell them what I'm thinking.

[SnidelyW]

So the battlefront of the mid 21st century will be 'Personal information- How to keep it yours!"

Let's understand that we all provide loads of personal information quite willingly for a few pennies or a t-shirt. Credit info, loyalty cards, surveys, both online and via telephone - do I need to go on?

Although I am not a fan of government misuse of private information, is it not a bit whiny to provide info willingly, and then bleat about a new way to process said info?

How about we slowly attempt to limit the personal information which we provide to anyone who craves it?

[Cleon]

Some idiots

Translation: "People who disagree with me."


sometimes ask me, "how do you know what I think? Are you psychic?!". Well, it has something to do with the words that come out of their mouth (or keyboard).

But then you take it to the next level; you tell people what they're "obviously" thinking that has no relation whatsoever to what "comes out of their mouth (or keyboard)."

[drkitten]

How about we slowly attempt to limit the personal information which we provide to anyone who craves it?

The problem is that that's quite inconvenient, and becoming more so.

I'll just use the local supermarket for an example. The local supermarket knows every item in every order, and there's no way to prevent them from doing that, since they need to price things effectively. Unless you pay cash for everything -- which is not only inconvenient, but actively dangerous, because cash can be stolen in a way that ATM/credit cards cannot -- they will also have a link to a purchaser, so they will know everything YOU buy.

[Fishstick]

The problem is that that's quite inconvenient, and becoming more so.

I'll just use the local supermarket for an example. The local supermarket knows every item in every order, and there's no way to prevent them from doing that, since they need to price things effectively. Unless you pay cash for everything -- which is not only inconvenient, but actively dangerous, because cash can be stolen in a way that ATM/credit cards cannot -- they will also have a link to a purchaser, so they will know everything YOU buy.

Oh no the gubmint knows I buy my zuccini on thursday :(.

I think the previous poster was referring to people happily entering much more personal information on publicly available sites like facebook, myspace, twitter and such. It's much easier to social engineer something out of someone by using their internet presence than using their grocery habits.

[drkitten]

I think the previous poster was referring to people happily entering much more personal information on publicly available sites like facebook, myspace, twitter and such.

Well, that might be what you think....

.... but it's wrong.


Let's understand that we all provide loads of personal information quite willingly for a few pennies or a t-shirt. Credit info, loyalty cards, surveys, both online and via telephone - do I need to go on?

I've never been offered a t-shirt or any money for what I write on twitter. He's specifically talking about, and I quote, "loyalty cards" (i.e. the supermarket), "credit info" (anywhere I purchase anything on credit), "surveys" (which are almost always marketing-related), and so forth.

The whole point of the loyalty card is because it is astonishingly valuable and informative to know that you buy zucchini on Thursdays. The supermarket spends a surprising amount of money simply to administer the program and more money yet in the giveaways they have to provide as incentives to use them. They wouldn't spend that money if they weren't getting information at least as valuable out of it.

Of course, it would be better yet if they could pull the information directly out of the credit card companies without needing to run their own program. That's where the real danger comes in; not the existence of any given data store, but the possibilities of the infinite cross-linkages.


It's much easier to social engineer something out of someone by using their internet presence than using their grocery habits.

But easier still if you can put them both together.

[INRM]

Since they said this machine is like HAL in 2001 a space-odyssey,

Is it possible for it to reach a sufficient level of intelligence that it could pose a threat to everybody.

[paximperium]

Since they said this machine is like HAL in 2001 a space-odyssey,

Is it possible for it to reach a sufficient level of intelligence that it could pose a threat to everybody.
Who is this "they"? What's this person's name? Who is the reporter who reported this?

Do tell.

[drkitten]

Since they said this machine is like HAL in 2001 a space-odyssey,

Is it possible for it to reach a sufficient level of intelligence that it could pose a threat to everybody.

:notm

[geni]

The problem is that that's quite inconvenient, and becoming more so.

I'll just use the local supermarket for an example. The local supermarket knows every item in every order, and there's no way to prevent them from doing that, since they need to price things effectively. Unless you pay cash for everything -- which is not only inconvenient, but actively dangerous, because cash can be stolen in a way that ATM/credit cards cannot -- they will also have a link to a purchaser, so they will know everything YOU buy.

Muggers don't have any way of knowing you are carrying cash and cash is less effort than fiddleing with those chip and pin things.

[geni]

Actually, it is overwhelming inability to understand that throughout history governments have always been able to spy on/kill/find pretty much anyone they chose to, if they chose to (at least in their area of control). Only the methods have changed.

The difference would be that the tech would let them know who they need to spy on and it avoids the volume problem goverments of freer societies face. Unless you are going to run your country like east germany it isn't posible to spy on eveyone you might want to spy on.

[geni]

:notm

Very probably yes. Realisticaly any AI is going to end up being contected to the net and given the current poor state of our computer security a smart enough AI would have few problems takeing down the web.

Your other problem is that beyond a certain point there is no obvious way to stop a smart enough AI from designing a smarter AI and at that point who lose control.

Fortunately since we enhabit different ecosystems there is little reason for conflict so we should be able to get by just fine.

[theprestige]

Since they said this machine is like HAL in 2001 a space-odyssey,
HAL is a work of fiction. Its specifications and capabilities are poorly defined, inadequately described, and totally devoid of any reality.

I'd be much more interested in what "they" have to say about this machine's specifications and capabilities in terms of real-world technologies that actually exist and can actually be evaluated and tested by real-world scientists and engineers (as opposed to science-fiction authors). If this machine even exists.

[JoeyDonuts]

Is it possible for it to reach a sufficient level of intelligence that it could pose a threat to everybody.

Yes. Then it would become infected with spyware.

"Dave...You can increase the size of your member with herbal supplements...Dave?"

[Alareth]

HAL worked perfectly. HAL wasn't evil or crazy, his problems were caused by humans and he was doing the best he could to follow instructions.

[Ducky]

Yes. Then it would become infected with spyware.

"Dave...You can increase the size of your member with herbal supplements...Dave?"

Someone said the exact same thing to me the other day...

[INRM]

JoeyDonuts,

Yes. Then it would become infected with spyware.

I'm pretty sure with the NSA's resources that thing would be as bug-proof as possible

[drkitten]

Muggers don't have any way of knowing you are carrying cash and cash is less effort than fiddleing with those chip and pin things.

Doesn't matter. Muggers are usually happy to mug you for your credit cards and for the small amount of cash that you carry around as a matter of routine.

If I'm willing to mug you for $20, finding out you're carrying $500 in cash is simply a pleasant bonus.

[GreNME]

I'm pretty sure with the NSA's resources that thing would be as bug-proof as possible

Okay, you're kidding, right?

At this point, the NSA relies on network sandboxing to maintain security, and even DoD regulations in security-- which are easily referenced online-- are done using the same hardware and software that anyone else can use. There are no super-mega-hyper-computers in the NSA.

[drkitten]

At this point, the NSA relies on network sandboxing to maintain security, and even DoD regulations in security-- which are easily referenced online-- are done using the same hardware and software that anyone else can use. There are no super-mega-hyper-computers in the NSA.

.... that anyone KNOWS about. But you're forgetting the Uber-Top-Hyper-Ultra Sekret Batcomputers that they use to monitor all the RFID chips worldwide, as well as the super-sekret computing base on the dark side of the moon from which they control the Orbital Mind Control Lasers. :D

That's the problem with "secret" government agencies; they're "secret." Which means you can make up more or less anything you like about them. Geni's comment earlier about them having an AI that can "take down the Web" being a case in point.

The problem is, if they've got that,.... WHY ARE THEY STILL FUNDING RESEARCH INTO CYBERSECURITY? If they've got a computer program that can read the entire web and answer complex questions about it, why are they still funding research into automatic document categorization?

It's not like these research programs are secret. Go to darpa.mil and see what they're currently looking for. As a general rule, anything they're willing to spend millions or billions to get is not something they already have.

[Beerina]

So the battlefront of the mid 21st century will be 'Personal information- How to keep it yours!"

Let's understand that we all provide loads of personal information quite willingly for a few pennies or a t-shirt. Credit info, loyalty cards, surveys, both online and via telephone - do I need to go on?

Although I am not a fan of government misuse of private information, is it not a bit whiny to provide info willingly, and then bleat about a new way to process said info?

How about we slowly attempt to limit the personal information which we provide to anyone who craves it?


I think you're misunderstanding the powerful nature of this beast. Using data mining and standard templates (borne out by case studies mapping correlations) they can get a damned good handle on what you do and how you think and what you may do. It goes way beyond just seeing you buy Depends, and therefore might be interested in a "Medigap" insurance policy or a vacation home in Florida.

[INRM]

Beerina,

I think you're misunderstanding the powerful nature of this beast. Using data mining and standard templates (borne out by case studies mapping correlations) they can get a damned good handle on what you do and how you think and what you may do. It goes way beyond just seeing you buy Depends, and therefore might be interested in a "Medigap" insurance policy or a vacation home in Florida.

Agreed

[GreNME]

I think you're misunderstanding the powerful nature of this beast. Using data mining and standard templates (borne out by case studies mapping correlations) they can get a damned good handle on what you do and how you think and what you may do. It goes way beyond just seeing you buy Depends, and therefore might be interested in a "Medigap" insurance policy or a vacation home in Florida.

Except you're already agreeing to this with every credit card you use, every online purchase you make, and so on.

[EGarrett]

Yeah, this is a pretty silly article that makes no sense.

I thought it was going to be something cool like a global satellite microphone that lets them read air disturbances within the atmosphere and thus listen in on any conversation anywhere.

[INRM]

EGarrett,

I thought it was going to be something cool like a global satellite microphone that lets them read air disturbances within the atmosphere and thus listen in on any conversation anywhere.

You would really want to develop something like that?

[EGarrett]

No, but it could certainly be considered a "holy grail of spy technology."

[GreNME]

Particularly since it would be nigh impossible to produce.

[EGarrett]

Given what's been achieved these days with satellites, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Alareth]

EGarrett,



You would really want to develop something like that?

I would. That would be just an awesome piece of tech.

[INRM]

Alareth,

So basically you'd want to develop something simply for the sake of developing it, even if developing it would be harmful to mankind as a whole?

Sounds remarkably short-sighted...


INRM

[GreNME]

Given what's been achieved these days with satellites, it wouldn't surprise me.

It's not the capabilities of technology that make me skeptical of even the possibility of such a thing. It's the physics behind air and sound that make it nigh impossible. Think of what water does to sound waves, and then multiply that by everything that makes ambient noise on top of the normal things that create sounds. The concept makes for interesting science fiction, but not much beyond that.

[theprestige]

It's not the capabilities of technology that make me skeptical of even the possibility of such a thing. It's the physics behind air and sound that make it nigh impossible. Think of what water does to sound waves, and then multiply that by everything that makes ambient noise on top of the normal things that create sounds. The concept makes for interesting science fiction, but not much beyond that.
And yet the planet seems to be covered with billions of organisms that can extract meaningful information from this sea of white noise...

[Fishstick]

And yet the planet seems to be covered with billions of organisms that can extract meaningful information from this sea of white noise...

Not from in orbit around the earth they can't.

[GreNME]

And yet the planet seems to be covered with billions of organisms that can extract meaningful information from this sea of white noise...

Actually, you're quite incorrect there. The planet is covered with billions of organisms who have learned to produce sounds of a greater intensity than their immediate ambient surroundings. That, however, wouldn't translate to being loud enough to overcome the ambient noise consisting of the atmosphere going several miles up.