George Orwell, here we come

WASHINGTON--The biggest problem with criticism of Adm. John Poindexter's massive spy proposal is not in the argument over the system being so darn creepy. Of course it's creepy. This new federal agency deliberately chose the motto "knowledge is power," crafted a logo certain to inspire conspiracy theories, and is itching to assemble a detailed computerized dossier on every American. And that a figure such as Poindexter--disgraced in the Iran-Contra scandal and with a database addiction dating back to at least 1987--is running the show is a detail worthy of a Jonathan Swift satire.

No, the biggest problem with the criticism of the Total Information Awareness system is that it's too shortsighted. It's focused on what the Poindexters of the world can do with current database and information-mining technology. That includes weaving together strands of data from various sources--such as travel, credit card, bank, electronic toll and driver's license databases--with the stated purpose of identifying terrorists before they strike.

But what could Poindexter and the Bush administration devise in five or 10 years, if they had the money, the power and the will?

That's the real question, and therein lies the true threat. Even if all of our current elected representatives, appointed officials and unappointed bureaucrats are entirely trustworthy--and that's a pretty big assumption--what could a corrupt FBI, Secret Service or Homeland Security police force do with advanced technology by the end of the decade? What if there was another terrorist attack that prompted Congress to delete whatever remaining privacy laws shield Americans from surveillance?

For a hint at what the future might bring, it's worth reviewing some of the projects already under way at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which is the parent agency for Poindexter's Information Awareness Office. Combine that information with the technology trends toward smaller sensors, cheaper hardware and ubiquitous wireless networks, and the possibilities are immensely disquieting. We could face the emergence of unblinking electronic eyes that record where we are and what we do, whenever we interact.

Poindexter's office has an entire project area called Human ID at a Distance that's spending millions on researching biometric technologies, including face recognition and "gait performance" detection. Imagine a world where every street corner is dotted with disposable microcameras, equipped with face-recognition software that identifies pedestrians and constantly updates their individual files with up-to-the-minute location information. (Wearing masks won't help: Many states already have antimask laws, and the rest would follow suit if masks became sufficiently popular.) The microcameras are linked through a network modeled on existing 802.11 wireless technology. The wireless mesh also includes cameras devoted to spotting and recording license plates and a third type that identifies people by the way they walk.

It's not that far from reality. Poindexter's office has an entire project area called Human ID at a Distance that's spending millions on researching biometric technologies, including face recognition and "gait performance" detection. Facecams already are in use in airports, city centers and casinos. And license plate recognition, by comparison, is a snap.

Or how about locations out of the range of this fixed surveillance mesh? In 1998, DARPA began funding a project to create spybots that can fly day and night and that use infrared and video sensors. These spybots, being designed by Lockheed Martin and code-named MicroStar, will have a six-inch wingspan, weigh only 86 grams and cost about $10,000--an affordable price point for surveilling Americans from above.

And what of the spybots' larger cousins, capable of hovering higher and seeing more for a longer duration? Last week The Washington Post reported that the federal government may permit unmanned aircraft to fly above the United States. "I believe that the potential applications for this technology in the area of homeland defense are quite compelling," said Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, who added that the drones could be used by domestic police agencies.

Location tracking GPS devices that record a vehicle's position and transmit it to police are an exciting growth area for the eavesdrop establishment. Jim Bell, an Internet essayist convicted of stalking federal agents, said before his arrest that he was sure the federal agencies were tailing him electronically. During Bell's trial, it emerged that he was right: The police arm of the IRS was tracking him on their laptops with a legally implanted GPS bug inside Bell's Nissan Maxima.

Last week, The Associated Press reported that an Oregon state task force wants a law requiring all cars to sport GPS receivers and recorders. The stated purpose: To measure how far you drive and calculate how much you owe in road taxes. The Nov. 15, 2002 report from the task force envisions some privacy protections--but those could be eliminated if homeland security worries become more acute, possibly leaving all Oregonians tracked whenever they're on the road.

Criminals already may be finding less desirable uses for GPS trackers. Last week, the Smoking Gun Web archive of documents owned by Court TV posted a criminal complaint against a 42-year-old Wisconsin man accused of stalking an ex-girlfriend using a GPS bug hidden in her car.

"We continue to see problems with stalkers (using databases)," says Peter Wayner, author of Translucent Databases. "I think there are many more sleazeballs who will use this stuff than there are cops who will use it to catch people. It's a lot easier to abuse this technology than to use it successfully."

Some of your congressional representatives may soon be asked why there has never been even one hearing investigating DARPA, Poindexter and his Total Information Awareness plans.

Then there's Applied Digital Systems (ADS) of Palm Beach, Fla., which received FDA approval last fall for a microchip to be implanted in humans for tracking and identification purposes. (Company spokesman Matthew Cossolotto told me in June 2001 that ADS had no such plans. "We are not now developing, nor do we have any plans to develop, anything other than an external, wearable device," he said in an e-mail message.)

It's difficult to imagine a more ruthlessly effective way to track every American. I doubt it's likely, but it's possible to imagine a future where "getting chipped" starts as a way to speed your way through lines at ATMs and airports--and ends up being mandatory.

There's some precedent. In October, police in one Colorado county started pressuring businesses to require fingerprints when customers make purchases with checks or credit cards. Police in Arlington, Texas, are asking businesses to participate in a similar program.

Things get stranger still. The Electronic Privacy Information Center used the Freedom of Information Act in August 2002 to obtain government documents that talked about reading air travelers' minds and identifying suspicious thoughts. The NASA briefing materials referred to "non-invasive neuro-electric sensors" to be used in aviation security.

In a bizarre press release, NASA claimed it has not approved any research in the area of "mind reading" and that "because of the sensitivity of such research," the agency will seek independent review of future projects. Yikes.

There are some bright areas in this generally dismal outlook. Avi Rubin, an associate professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University, predicts growing interest in antisurveillance measures. "I expect there will be a whole industry popping up in counter-surveillance--at least, I hope," Rubin said. "Nowadays, it's not like someone drops a camera and comes back and retrieves the data. You attack the transmission."

Short of fleeing to the wilderness or living our lives entirely online, our only option is to fight the Poindexterization of modern life before it becomes too late. Congress returns this week. Some of your congressional representatives may soon be asked why there has never been even one hearing investigating DARPA, Poindexter and his Total Information Awareness plans.

Let us assume for a moment that as of right now, the Government has the ability to track anyone, anywhere, at any time. In what ways is your freedom inhibited, limited, or in any way infringed? I would like to hear a good explaination since you assert that "most of their freedom depends on the Government's inability to track everyone, everywhere." Looking forward to your response.

First, your premise is wrong. The government already has the ability that you suggest. When focusing on a particular individual, they can track someone nearly all of the time. What is being posited is the ability to track most people, most of the time, most places, and have all the data in a data base available to those in govt most able to abuse it. This is a far different and far more dangerous situation.

First, it is nearly impossible to live without breaking laws in today's society. This gives ample opportunity to stifle dissent using the existing legal structure. Do you *Never* go over the speed limit, carry a gun within a thousand feet of a school, take a thousand dollars out of a bank on two different days within a week, contribute to a "terrorist group" (how do you know, they are always changing?), put your garbage out too early or too late, or any of the other things that may, or may not be illegal in today's society. Second, even if you thread the legal needle completely, which I believe to be nearly impossible, are you sure that you will never find yourself in circumstances where the case could plausibly be made that you were violating the law, especially tax law?

Once you realize that if the powers that be want to persecute you, they can, then it becomes very important just how easy it is for them to do so. A data base of everyone, with everyone's purchases, health records, travel records, library withdrawals, and all internet communications makes it infinitly easier to use the legal system to persecute people.

Suppose that you are critical of a new president, a new leftist, on FR. This is logged. It is noted that you have purchased a ticket to travel to a city where the new president's daughter is giving a speech. It is noted that you bought ammunition two years before. Your house is raided, everything is torn apart, all guns, ammunition, computers, books, phone directories, and address books are confiscated on the premise of a threat.

People soon learn not to be critical of the new president. Your freedom of speech has just been significantly restricted.

People in many major cities already do not purchase guns because "they don't want to get into trouble". Their 2nd amendment rights have already been chilled. When the federal government knows if you attended a gun show by the location your car was parked, this right is further diminished. The combination of enourmous codes of law, many of which are contradictory and impossible to decipher, combined with the database proposed, gives a real power to a predatory administration.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.