Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

About the x-ray vision thing, the satellite network need not have it.
The satellite network, if its ever developed, would only be an adjunct
to a far greater intelligence gathering network, which would include
creating a mirror of all the CATV, cell phone, telephone, fax,
financial transactions, legal transactions, and internet traffic - and
sift through that for patterns of activity and attaching each data
stream to each individual. Then, modelling the individual's personality
based on the data stream produced and predicting that person's future
traffic patterns. This would be done for all people simultaneously.
This could be added to with a multi-billion dollar program that would
do deep psychological profiling of all criminals - not to improve or
change them - but to understand them, how they think, and then model
them, and find those people out in society who are close to them in
their innermost thoughts. We could then enter phase 2, which would do
longitudinal studies of the entire population, which would give us how
memes and ideas play on one another to create changes over time. Then,
in phase 3, we could arrest people right at the moment of committing a
crime. And when we got very good at it, we might even push it at the
urging of a latter day Ann Coulter who would ask why wait if 100% of
the criminals have this pattern of activity blah blah blah... push it
to the point of arresting people we could predict would commit a crime
at some point in the future with near certainty. Then finally phase 5,
the reaction of society to the efficient eradication of the
contribution of all those folks to society who are efficiently
identified with the resulting disruption of things, and things getting
progressively worse - even while the system that was going to fix
everything works better and better. As we learn that the fault is in
ourselves, not our systems.

wrote:

About the x-ray vision thing, the satellite network need not have it.
The satellite network, if its ever developed, would only be an adjunct
to a far greater intelligence gathering network, which would include
creating a mirror of all the CATV, cell phone, telephone, fax,
financial transactions, legal transactions, and internet traffic - and
sift through that for patterns of activity and attaching each data
stream to each individual. Then, modelling the individual's personality
based on the data stream produced and predicting that person's future
traffic patterns. This would be done for all people simultaneously.
This could be added to with a multi-billion dollar program that would
do deep psychological profiling of all criminals - not to improve or
change them - but to understand them, how they think, and then model
them, and find those people out in society who are close to them in
their innermost thoughts. We could then enter phase 2, which would do
longitudinal studies of the entire population, which would give us how
memes and ideas play on one another to create changes over time. Then,
in phase 3, we could arrest people right at the moment of committing a
crime. And when we got very good at it, we might even push it at the
urging of a latter day Ann Coulter who would ask why wait if 100% of
the criminals have this pattern of activity blah blah blah... push it
to the point of arresting people we could predict would commit a crime
at some point in the future with near certainty. Then finally phase 5,
the reaction of society to the efficient eradication of the
contribution of all those folks to society who are efficiently
identified with the resulting disruption of things, and things getting
progressively worse - even while the system that was going to fix
everything works better and better. As we learn that the fault is in
ourselves, not our systems.



The horrible thing is that you can actually see all of this happening
too, can't you?
Yup, we probably do indeed get arrested for "thought crime" somewhere in
the fairly near future.
We lose three thousand citizens in a terrorist attack, and we promptly
roll over and become a totalitarian state.
Somebody should give a little talk from one of the military cemeteries
in Europe, where there are far more than three thousand Americans dead
who gave their lives to stop a totalitarian state from gaining power
over the world.
I think we are presently betraying their sacrifice.

Pat

How many citizens have we lost to unreported government action? My
feeling is that it is far greater than 3,000 - but I have no idea. I
mean, would someone be surprised if a drug lord is gunned down in his
home? No. Would someone be upset if a powerful business leader
suddenly 'lost it'? No. Would someone be upset if members of a
powerful democratic family has a run of bad luck (skiing accidents,
airplane crashes, unfortunate auto accidents, assasinations of
successful candidates) following the assasination of one of their
members when they were President of the US? No. Would someone be
concerned about the death of artists who have a powerful influence on
society, but one that is not easily controlled or runs counter to the
mainstream body politic? No. If these patterns are not just the
ravings of a paranoid - if they do reflect the operation of a very deep
undercover agency in the US - then we are already through the looking
glass - and likely have been for a long time.

Probably since the Civil War. That long ago. Recall that the spy in
popular fiction changed radically after the downing of the U2 spy
plane. A literature created by 'former' spies! And during the 'family
jewels' it was interesting to see what sort of TV programs were
popular. Get Smart, which portrayed spies as buffoons, I Spy which
portrayed spies as supermen, Man from Uncle, Mission Impossible, and
Wild Wild West - each with its own message, each innervating the public
against certain aspects of government excess.

It seems quite reasonable to say that we do not want political
discourse in this country to tear it apart! This is what happend
during the Civil War. So, it shouldn't be surprising if there was some
sort of response to it. Lincoln is the first assasination of a
President in this period. Was it the operation of a new agency? Who
knows? Unlikely perhaps. But, its fun to think of other possible
events following the Civil War. Events that don't seem to have
parallels before the Civil War. The escape of Mormon Church founder
John Smith after his arrest in St. Louis is highly suspect as a
domestic intelligence operation. The bad press, and later bad luck of
Henry Ford after a meteoric rise to power after doubling of wages at
his factory and him talking of the obligations of business owners and a
possible run for the presidency, is another possible indicator. And
who can forget the murder of Huey Long after the success of his "every
man a king" campaign against FDR? Long was murdered much as Ceaser was
murdered, which predicted the mode of death of nearly every visionary
leader of the latter half of the 20th century.

If such agencies exist, and are operating, I suspect that during the
cold war there wre contingency plans to expand their role in the
political disourse of the nation in the event of a nuclear attack on
the US. This seems like a reasonable thing to do in that context. Of
course, once these plans are long-standing, they might get implemented
if the technology develops along the lines conducive to it, and with
far lesser provocation than a nuclear attack. This may be the period
in which we're living right now.

I would urge a far less stringent course of action to those who are
really writing history, than the dissolution of such agencies, which
are likely an important part of our strength as a nation in the modern
world. Namely, that they keep good records of what they're doing for
future generations to look at. Of course, they don't need my urging.
Longitudinal studies of populations are of paramount importance in
predicting things. So, I'm certain there are records aplenty.
Hopefully they apply technies to themselves as well, and become
familiar with the common mode failures of their systems before trying
them on the whole population. Certain indicators from the 'family
jewels' of the 70s show that this is very likely (trying out LSD on
controlled populations for example)

Finally, I wonder about the success of intelligence enhancing
technologies in the consumer electronics front - GPS enabled portable
telephones with color cameras built right in - and lack of success of
technologies that weaken the strength of a central governments - a
flying car. Of course there are mundane explanations for all these
seeming patterns of things. But that would be the mark of a well
wrought disinformation campaign. So, anyone thinking along these
lines, and who is outside and has no certain knowledge of things, have
nothing of substance to base any well reasoned argument upon. And, any
discussion of apparent patterns of abuse, the assasination of JFK for
example, is subsumed in the poularized version of events (looking at a
magic bullet rather than a continuing pattern of bad luck affecting the
only political family that would likely get to the bottom of the
assasination if they ever attained power - so they cannot - and in the
end, the idea of a Kennedy ever being President again will be a joke -
on the level of 'let George do it.' even centuries from today)

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Yup, we probably do indeed get arrested for "thought crime" somewhere in
the fairly near future.

We can, *now*. Only its not called "thought crime", it's "hate crime".

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
But unless it had X-ray vision it couldn't see that day my pants fell down
while I was standing at the WalMart checkout line.

Thereby making all the ladies swoon...

why the hell does this surprise anyone?

All western democracies have greater threats internally than externally.
Because they are democracies they are not supposed to spy on citizens.

So they get other trusted parties to do it (ala Echelon)
The canucks spy on the yanks, the yanks spy on the canucks
The kiwis spy on the ozzies and the ozzies spy on the kiwis
The poms spy on everyone, and everyone spies on the poms

Now that america trusts no-one, and with the pat riot act, they spy
on each other. The spy agencies that is. On each other.
Some are so secret that a fellow had to spy on himself, and he
didn't even realise it. He didn't even know he was a spy!

Somewhere, an evilgrin glints inside a cave.

BlagooBlanaa wrote:

why the hell does this surprise anyone?


It shouldn't. The US Supreme Court rules this sort of thing perfectly
legal back in 1979.



--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

Jim Oberg ) wrote:

: Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

: Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
: quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
: her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
: what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.


: Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
: have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
: that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
: America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
: really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
: one in the movies." That's good enough for most
: talk shows! grin


Yep, Hollywood is your Big Brother, right Jim "Winston Smith" Oberg?

Eric

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...

Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.


Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
one in the movies." That's good enough for most
talk shows! grin

well, the only part that seemed at all paranoid was this paragraph
"Privacy advocates wonder how much the agency picks up - and stores. Many
are increasingly skeptical of intelligence agencies with recent revelations
about the Bush administration's surveillance on phone calls and e-mails."
Which I think is quite reasonable. For example, if there is a subject under
surveillance, the NGA could determine when someone visited the subject, and
when the subject wasn't at home. (Assuming that the person parked outside.)
Combined with the NSA traffic analysis of phone calls, and motor vehicle
records, one might be able to determine who the visitor was, (or at least
might be.) Hell of a waste of resources though -- probably cheaper and more
accurate just to get someone to go there.

How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
are in power ???

Or is it just a symptom of American politics ??

Or do they have to carry out observations to keep an eye on the
numbers of internal terrorists in the US ???