Talk:Information Awareness Office

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] News

I just came across the new national journal article describing how this program was continued under a different name, at least until the end of 2004. http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0223nj1.htm

As I haven't done any work editing this page, I'll post here first, and not just add the update myself, as you guys obviously have your thoughts on how it should be done.

[edit] Misc.

Lets get rid of the list of media critical of "total info.". Definitely change the name to avoid confusion with actual program addressed in article. Since none of the works question the program itself but rather the Orwellian vision of critics of this program - I think there is inherent POV. Lotsofissues 12:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Is the list of books and movies at the end exploring Total Information Awareness appropriate for this article? --kwertii

I believe so, several other articles have ".. in pop-culture" sections, I find this suitable.--72.38.204.116 15:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

yes. those books are warnings to all about the evils of the IAO Vera Cruz 05:46 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

I doubt that they are appropriate. They're all against what TIA is obviously for, so you could argue that listing them is not NPOV. (and no, I don't like TIA either). --KQ
I tried to come up with some counterexamples that would paint TIA in a favorable light, but I couldn't think of any... kwertii
Too bad Poindexter disconnected his phone, maybe he could help us out.  ;-) --KQ

Lets roadtrip and visit him! Vera Cruz 06:58 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

We could invite him to join Wikipedia and provide NPOV balance on this article. ;) --Brion

not listing them would be POV--while the books are POV the fact that they were written and are undeniably related to IAO issues is quite NPOV Vera Cruz 05:48 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)

Hm. interesting point. --KQ

i added in the research sections here, most of the information was on the iao's own website. anybody have anything to add to that? i must say the more i learn the more scared i am. the time is fast approaching when we all must leave the country to escape dictatorship before it is too late. "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation, we must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." -- Adolf Hitler User:MarcusAurelius 0619 CST

Why don't you go live in Amsterdam for a year and try telling us then how awful the us government is! Vera Cruz 13:08 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

But Amsterdam's really nice. Lovely old churches, classical music, canals, flowers, friendly people...

What was your point, exactly? Are you perhaps saying that U.S. citizens shouldn't criticise their government on their own soil? I thought that freedom was the whole point of the U.S. constitution. The Anome

Freedom of speech? What freedom of speech?

Vera Cruz

[edit] The logo change

OMFG, the IAO blazon is horrifying. Kingturtle 01:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

Scary, isn't it? Big Brother, anybody? -- Zoe
My first thought on seeing it is that the IAO would have to be incredibly stupid to use this design. Are we sure it is not a hoax? Why would an agency deliberately use symbols which would inevitably evoke memories of 1984/freemasonic conspiracies/world domination? You'd think they would pretend to be warm, fuzzy, and protective.... -- Someone else 02:56 21 May 2003 (UTC)
True, I can't find the image at http://www.darpa.mil/iao/ Kingturtle 02:59 21 May 2003 (UTC)
it's true; they pulled it after public backlash. I did see it there just after the program was announced. Koyaanis Qatsi P.S. another P.R. stunt: the Total Information Awareness program is now the "Terrorist Information Awareness" program. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&ncid=581&e=4&u=/nm/20030520/tc_nm/attack_privacy_dc
The original Total Information Awareness logo can also be seen at the net archive, at http://web.archive.org/web/20021027211118/http://www.darpa.mil/iao/
This link no longer works. The memoryhole.org reference below goes to a web page that does not match the format of the main darpa.mil in late 2002 as documented at archive.org. Not taking a stand, just noting the peculiar. -wr

According to http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/iao-logo.htm, they deleted the logo. See http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/iao/iao-original.htm for what their website supposedly originally looked like. -- Zoe

I just wondered if anyone had seen it actually on their website (is memoryhole.org a reliable source? I have/had no idea.) But if KQ saw it on the actual site, I guess it's just a case of REALLY bad public relations rather than hoax! -- Someone else 03:06 21 May 2003 (UTC)

I saw the site when it first came up, that was the logo! Pizza Puzzle

The ACLU has a page on this peculiar logo change as well: The much-discussed original and the new, less frightening "sanitized" version. I also saw the original logo myself at the official site at the time. --Vinsci 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Well, the Illuminati only have a limited degree of influence here in Wikipedia... The whole concept of a free, self-sustaining, god-forbid DEMOCRATIC online encyclopaedia goes directly against the agenda of most groups that could be described as 'Illuminati' (such as the Vrill society)...

J.A.M.M

[edit] The designer of the logo / background psychology

I'm really curious to know who designed the IAO logo, and what orders they were given. I think if we could find out we'd get a good insight into the psychology of some part of the government/intelligence community.

Either a) they sincerely thought this was the best logo, and tried really hard to come up with it. They would have been shocked and horrified to see the reaction to it, perhaps disappointed at people's "blinkered" point of view. ("Illumiwhat?")

Or b) there were some very arrogant people involved who knew what they were doing and thought "fuck it - people are so stupid or apathetic nobody will care".

Or maybe c) the people in charge didn't really mind if the project went through or not, but were willing to settle for being able to monitor the reaction to such a scheme, with such a provocative logo. This class of people certainly got some interesting data out of the whole thing.

Of course, in truth there's probably some blend of these and other goals, the actual outcome satisfying each of them to some degree. But I would really like to know who did the logo, and why - I even emailed DARPA to find out but got no reply. No surprise there! AndrewHodgson 09:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Disputes

I put an NPOV dispute warning on this (it's accurate, I'm disputing the neutrality right here) because of the second paragraph and also the end of the first: is it really necessary to bring up Iran-Contra? --Charles A. L. 17:23, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

I think so. It's Poindexter's main claim to fame - most people, if they've heard of him at all, will know him in connection with Iran-Contra. It's not really disputed that he was involved, so how's that POV? The public controversy surrounding his appointment centered on his role in Iran-Contra, so that must also be mentioned.. Kwertii 19:36, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It's what we said, not how we said it. Well, actually, you're not wrong, so I guess in part it is how we said it:
former National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan and chief architect of the Iran-Contra Affair.
This makes these each seem like roles he's had in the same way -- "first he was hired in National Security, then they transferred him to Illegal Covert Operations." Except in my most cynical moments I'm inclined to believe it was the national security part of his résumé that recommended him for this job, not his criminal activities. I don't think removing (or at least moving) the Iran-contra reference would detract from the article. You clearly disagree, so I'm not changing it. However, if it is needless, its very presence could be taken as POV.
Perhaps a more blatantly neutral phrasing, something like "controversy over Poindexter's integrity followed his appointment to the [IAO] position due to his role in the Iran-Contra scandal," which is what's in John Poindexter, would blunt that impression somewhat. --Charles A. L. 20:01, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

Since no one else got off their butts and did it, I edited the article to rephrase the items identified as NPOV, and removed the NPOV warning.

Also, please see Talk:LifeLog.

I have made several (relatively minor, IMO) changes to the Introduction section, with the aim of removing some excessive adjectives that give the overall impression of a non-NPOV. I attempted as much as possible to retain all factual content in the paragraph I edited. I think there are some other places in the article that could use this treatment as well, but I only went after what I thought was the most glaring NPOV. -- Kadin2048 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "implented" typo

Under Genisys, "implented" = "implemented". Great article, by the way.

Seems like the IAO homepage has vanished from darpa.mil. Anybody know where it went? Google won't help, neither will the darpa search.

[edit] Joke?

Is this article a joke? Does this really exist? It sounds like something out of a bad novel, not reality. -Branddobbe 02:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not a joke. Please see mass surveillance as well as the articles that link to it. And that's not the full story. --Vinsci 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Poindextor's felony record

Poindexter might be an evil person and certainly was convicted of multiple felony counts, but those convictions were overturned. I've added a comment clarifying this after the remarks about his convictions. Joshua 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NY Times Article

The following NYTimes article from 2005.12.24 seems to suggest that a program very similar to Total Information Awareness still secretly exists: 'Spy Agency Mined Vast Data Trove, Officials Report' Should this be a footnote on the article page, somewhere? We can't definitively say that TIA still exists, but it should be noted that a similar program still seems to be out there. (unsigned comment by User:68.101.106.185)

That actually isn't the same as TIA at all. - Erick12 20:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Information Processing Technology Office?

The Wikipedia entry for "Information Processing Technology Office" seems to describe the mission of IPTO to be almost identical to the mission of the supposedly-retired IAO... Not sure how to link the 2, just thought I'd point that out to you who are more experienced with Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Processing_Technology_Office especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LifeLog "LifeLog aims to compile a massive electronic database of every activity and relationship a person engages in. This is to include credit card purchases, web sites visited, the content of telephone calls and e-mails sent and received, scans of faxes and postal mail sent and received, instant messages sent and received, books and magazines read, television and radio selections, physical location recorded via wearable GPS sensors, biomedical data captured through wearable sensors, The high level goal of this data logging is to identify "preferences, plans, goals, and other markers of intentionality." ( http://www.darpa.mil/ipto/Solicitations/PIP_03-30.html )

[edit] Futures

"It will analyze data from the world's economy in an attempt to predict political instability, threats to national security, and in general every major event in the near future."

I don't know about this program in particular, but the quote which precedes this analysis seems to say that they want to study something like a futures exchange, except on civil events instead of traditional economic activities. Really not unlike the websites that took bets on the papal enclave, if you remember that. (Opinion polls tell you what people WANT to happen, but markets tell you what people are willing to put money on.) So unless this program is doing that AND the above, I think this article is misinterpreting it.

I'm not editing it because I don't know enough about the subject, but may I suggest somebody clarify it? IEdML 23:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IAO Research

Many of the subjects in this section are overcomplicated. Should it be re-written in simpler terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.91.22 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)