The Air Force Office of Scientific Research recently began funding a new research area that includes a study of blogs.
Blog research may provide information analysts and warfighters with invaluable help in fighting the war on terrorism.
Drs. Brian E. Ulicny and Mieczyslaw M. Kokar, Framingham, Mass., will receive approximately $450,000 in funding for the 3-year project entitled “Automated Ontologically-Based Link Analysis of International Web Logs for the Timely Discovery of Relevant and Credible Information.”
The leading task in the so-called War on Terror continues to be spying on people who say stuff out loud. If you publish or read, hang out in unconventional places like libraries or the Web, you’re dangerous.
This Air Force press release is a boring, backwards piece of crap. It perfectly reflects a great deal of our current military [and government] mentality.
Read through it and reflect on why you’re all under suspicion.
The question then becomes, if you DONT leave some trail on the net about yourself then “what have you got to hide?”
Lose Lose situation.
where else could they listen but where people speak?
Ontologically-Based Link Analysis of International Web Logs
Ontologically-Based ? They want to know whether or not the link exists? They’re going to validate all my links for me?
International? And they’re going to base that determination on whether or not my hosting service is located overseas? Or can I disqualify myself by using “Falon Gong” as a meta-tag?
And am I going to be reimbursed for all this stuff they’re putting in my internet tube? If my little $10/mo. shared server is a truck, it can’t be any more than a Datsun. USAF OUT OF 65.98.14.66!
And how does Bush figure into all this? He’s what’s wrong with everything, you know.
Frank IBC’s Law: First one to blame Bush loses.
Max brings up a great point. Since I am soon going to have a tiered pay service for internet access, is the U.S. government going to reimburse me for bandwidth used spying on 69.54.41.194 and 69.54.41.198? Additionally can I start charging Microsoft for the MSN bots scanning my sites? Where does it end?!?!?
When will the military figure out that terrorist need places to sleep?
American citizens might as well take all the doors off your homes.
The question really is becoming…what are they planning on doing with the information that they are data mining from people’s blogs?
Is it invasive…I don’t think so, or else you really should not be putting sensitive information on the net that would be open to scanning bots in the first place. However, where do you draw the line though on what to do with the information that is gathered? I HIGHLY doubt there is any oversight of the usage of that information.
At $450,000 over 3 years a typical military contractor will be able to scan 3 or 4 websites tops. I wouldn’t be concerned.
That said is it now the position of those that hang around this site that the US government has no business developing intelligence sources if they involve the Internet?
Gig, I think they’re talking about spiders not one-on-one monitoring. The premise is much more reactionary than the technology — or software.
Is it invasive…I don’t think so, or else you really should not be putting sensitive information on the net that would be open to scanning bots in the first place.
As Uncle Sugar likes to point out, it is often the case that collections of otherwise meaningless data can become meaningful. (i.e. you can take 20 unclassified documents, which when combined, become a single classified document.) That’s essentially the definition of data mining, no?
Information analysis can be tricky. If I say “Praise the Lord for our wonderful government,” will they know how sarcastic I’m being? Will I be flagged as a patriot or a terror threat? In a world where “you’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror,” I must be one of those two.
Now that our lives revolve around the never-ending war on terror, it’s important to realize that we live every day on the battlefield. Don’t forget to report any unusually liberal or otherwise suspicious activities you notice to the proper authorities. A good citizen is a watchful citizen.
Gary — I’ll bet I can guess which way our Schutzstaffel will interpret your remarks 🙂 .
I’ve seen posters opposed to a large police presence, no ID requirements, no database tracking, no tracking of websites, no airport security, and no interrogations of anyone caught, no wiretapping, and no spy cameras. So exactly how would you hunt for terrorists?
#12, what other kind of company do you keep, who are actually opposed to airport security? I guess it’s nice to go where you’re the smartest person in the room, isn’t it?
AB CD, I’m sorry your little brain can’t comprehend things, so I’ll make this as brief as possible
a large police presence,
A police presence in itself is not a problem. It is when the police presence is so pervasive that it stifles the First Amendment. For example, during the 2004 Republican convention where police not only prevented people from demonstrating, they were arrested and hauled off to jail and NOT allowed access to a lawyer or brought before a Judge.
no ID requirements,
Because the whole ID thing has been abused. The whole concept of an internal passport is anathema to the American way. Yet we find people are being held simply because they do not have an ID on their person, ID has been counterfeited many times, ID is stolen and misused and the police in general have no or little interest in finding Identity thieves. We are now expected to carry photo ID with us at all times.
no database tracking,
Simply because there is no oversight of the tracking. The government is amassing a huge database of information on its citizens. Why? No one has a problem with tracking criminals or even terrorists. But a lot of us have a problem tracking everyone.
no tracking of websites,
Again, why? What criminal or terrorists post their plans, membership, hideouts, or how they plan on doing their next crime. The only reason to track people is to maintain a database of everyone. If there is a website being run by the mafia or al Quaeda then sure, monitor them.
no airport security,
What security? Confiscating nail clippers? A No Fly List that has no rhyme or reason why people are on it and is impossible to get off of? Agents that shoot the mentally disturbed passengers after leaving an airplane? When there is a workable security then you will find that we all agree.
and no interrogations of anyone caught,
Now where did you come up with this one? Oh, I remember, the Rove doctrine, invent shit and keep repeating it. After a while it becomes true. Personally, I am very bothered that our forces stoop to torture. Torture is a criminal act and not interrogation.
no wiretapping,
I would say we are all in favor of legal wiretapping. Which means the police (and NSA) need some proof that the person they want to tap is more then just a maybe-possible-could be-looks likely-suspicious-person who has done nothing wrong or incriminating. Plus, we do not know who or what is being tapped. And, what is the government doing with all that data they illegally obtained?
and no spy cameras
At least not in any place we expect some privacy. Even in public places, it leaves the question why in most cases. There is no proof that photo identity has proven to have caught anyone that the police wouldn’t have caught without it.
As I said, a very brief answer. Maybe others will expand on some points, but I don’t think this blog needs overly long posts.
That’s a pretty good thumbnail sketch.
>and no interrogations of anyone caught,
>Now where did you come up with this one?
I wasn’t referring to torture. If you give Geneva Protections to captured detainees, then you are not allowed to interrogate them.
So just how would you try to capture Al-Qaeda?
#16 AB CD, I really think you ought to stop hanging around in the places where you hear these lies repeated, and simply re-read your Geneva Convention. It doesn’t forbid interrogation at all. The two prohibitions from Article 3 that our administration finds unduly restrictive are these:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
“I wasn’t referring to torture. If you give Geneva Protections to captured detainees, then you are not allowed to interrogate them.”
The Geneva Convention applies to war. The US is currently at war with nobody. I realize that GWB says you’re at war all the time because it gets all the couch warriors all excited but that doesn’t make it true.
I wasn’t referring to torture. If you give Geneva Protections to captured detainees, then you are not allowed to interrogate them.
So just how would you try to capture Al-Qaeda?
If they are Prisoners of War the they may be held until hostilities cease. POWs are covered under the Geneva Convention. If they are criminals then they need to be charged and brought before a duly constituted court for trial. To hold them indefinitely, torture, deny a trial, and deny access to lawyers really confuses the whole thing and is illegal under our current laws. You can’t declare them part of something that has no meaning in law. Either the al Qaeda prisoners are criminals and deserve to be charged and afforded a trial or they are POWs and can not be held in solitary, denied mail or visits from the International Red Cross or subjected to abusive treatment.
Couldn’t this be good news?
If Rumsfeld had read what I wrote on-line before the Iraq war, America would be a lot better off today!
Oh… that’s probably not why they are readimg my blog, is it?
Oh… that’s probably not why they are readimg my blog, is it?
Comment by gregallen — 7/6/2006 @ 7:17 pm
What makes you think they haven’t read it? What makes you think you aren’t in some huge data base at NSA headquarters waiting for the day the fascists start their roundup of dissenters.
At least they won’t be coming for AB CD. Or will they?
I’m not asking how you would treat Al-Qaeda already caught. What methods should the police/FBI/others actually use to try and capture Al-Qaeda, foil plots, etc?
It appears you’re right about interrogation of POWs. I misunderstood the part about ‘POWs are only obligated to provide their name…’
However, the restriction on interrogations isn’t just no torture, but nothing uncomfortable.