BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


IAO: am I just paranoid....?

 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
02:12 / 31.10.02
IAO Mission: The DARPA Information Awareness Office (IAO) will imagine, develop, apply, integrate, demonstrate and transition information technologies, components and prototype, closed-loop, information systems that will counter asymmetric threats by achieving total information awareness useful for preemption; national security warning; and national security decision making.

Does this not sound as Illuminati-esque as all hell? Hello were trying to make big brother real... oh and here is their logo:



This is the article that freaked me out: Artifact: No Go Logo

This is the agency's home page: Information Awareness Office (IAO)
 
 
Linus Dunce
12:01 / 31.10.02
Well, I think we have reason to be paranoid anyway. Maybe though this is a military office trying to gain/retain funding from a less-than-sophisticated administration. This kind of language and symbolism probably appeals to the people in control of the budget.

I should say though that as soon as I see a conspiracy theory that mentions the masons, I switch off. Really, they're no more dangerous than the average golf club. And probably less conservative.
 
 
tango88
12:20 / 31.10.02
Creepy. And the linked article is right, it'll set off the conspiracy theorists. But I heard that the 'eye in the pyramid' is not really a Masonic symbol. Anybody know it's origins?
 
 
Hieronymus
12:20 / 31.10.02
Bleh. DARPA's been the scientific brains behind the military since Eisenhower put it into motion. *yawns*
 
 
Linus Dunce
13:05 / 31.10.02
There's a link in the story to one explanation which I guess would probably be near the truth.

It's not a masonic symbol, though masonry (obviously) and the eye of God appear in masonic art. And some of the founders etc. of the U.S. were masons, so it's not surprising some themes are similar.
 
 
kid coagulant
13:38 / 31.10.02
Ack, 'Wired' ran a bit on DARPA a few months ago that included a logo from one of their research departments that was fucking hilarious. Here's info from 'wired's' site but it looks like DARPA has since taken the page down. Will see if I can find the logo and scan it in or something...

'Darpa: Lost in the Translation
Creativity by committee? How else to explain the macabre merit-badge aesthetic of this bizarre insignia, with its smoking Twin Towers struck by lightning, angry Eveready kitty, and - hey! Is that Chinese? It's the emblem for the Pentagon's Babylon project (www.darpa.mil/ito/research/babylon/goals.html), which is developing a language translation gadget for today's globetrotting soldier. Question: What were they thinking? Tower of Babel, languages - OK, we get those. But does the Pentagon really mean to equate 9/11 with a biblical story of God's wrath upon an unholy tower? The brass declined to comment. - Charles Graeber'

wired
 
 
gravitybitch
14:21 / 31.10.02
I love that IAO logo.

Let's see - the pyramid is behind the globe and is shining light on it, and the side of the globe facing us is Europe and Africa and Asia. The way it's presented, most of the side of the globe facing us is well-lit from the light beaming from the Eye.

Does that mean that the other side of the globe (the US) is in the dark in spite of facing the full glory of the Eye? What does it mean that the US doesn't show up at all in a government logo?
 
 
Linus Dunce
15:05 / 31.10.02
It means an infra-red eye is looking at you in your sleep. And that it's lunchtime here in London. :-)
 
 
Linus Dunce
15:07 / 31.10.02
Pass the cucumber sandwiches, would you? They're there, on top of that copy of The Communist Manifesto ... :-)
 
 
Mr Tricks
00:00 / 01.11.02
Off topic I suppose...
fairly interesting article called
When Paranoids Get Lazy

quote...
"Idle speculation in an e-mail is one thing. But it wasn't long before the same suspicions were being beefed up into full-fledged but no less flimsy articles."

so... was Paul Welstone murdered?
 
 
Stone Mirror
03:45 / 01.11.02
Let's all try to remember that the folks at DARPA were the same people who brought you the magic of the Internet.
 
 
Mr Tricks
19:24 / 01.11.02
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
 
 
Malle Babbe
13:05 / 03.11.02
Surely I'm not the only person here that caught the Gnostic significance of IAO???
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
20:54 / 03.11.02
No I noticed that before I even got to see the logo. Iao Babylon!
 
 
Sharkgrin
21:06 / 04.11.02
I thought DARPA was the bachelorette on 'Who wants to marry a Millionaire?'
 
 
tSuibhne
23:53 / 04.11.02
The run down on this after reading several unclassified military documents on the subject:

The idea of information awareness (or information superiorty as it's ussually refered to) is pretty tame. In short, it's 'what do they have, and how does it compare to what we have?' The 'they' being who ever we are in combat with. This gets taken a bit further during acctual combat, when it takes on the role of knowing where your people are in relation to the enemy. It's basically the next step in military intellegence and strategy tools, now that we have technology like spy sattelites and RF tags. The main focus here is to cut delivery time down to secs so that the people in control of a battle can see what's going on, on the battlefield in real time.

If your interested in it, do some searches for Joint Vision 2020 and 2010, the general idea is discussed there. You can also do some searches for Informtion Superiority, though alot of these documents are getting put behind passwords. And before people jump to conclusions, the passwords are more for keeping track of who has access, then keeping people out. If you have access to a .mil address, (including things like the AKO site, which anyone who has ever been in the Army, or has worked with the Army can get access to) you can get access to most of these sites. Since, like I said, it's all unclassified.

In short, I wouldn't sweat it. People give the military a hell of a lot more credit then they deserve. They may have once been at the front of technology. Now a days, your average corporation can get more information about you then the US military.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
09:34 / 05.11.02
I wouldn't put it past this office to start by buying information off of the corporations. Correlating the data using computerized profiling and classifying anyone with anti-establishment views as "potential terrorists". The classification would then be used as justification, in meetings that would never be revealed to the public, for domestic espionage. The Spying in such possible forms as noninvasive traffic analysis of mail and invasive content analysis of email would violate civil rights but not the law as it stands post 9/11. Various agencies would then likely have agent provocateurs infiltrate, rile up and potentially falsely implicate groups of "potential terrorists" in order to reclassify them as terrorists and suppress them. Such entrapment has never been struck down in terms of the "war on drugs" surely the "war on terror" will be no different.

All of these actions are no different in character than actions that the United States government has taken in the past (COINTELPRO for example). The only difference is the new level of capabilities that digital convergence provides the federal government.

In all likelihood this particular sub-agency is merely a blind, set up to do perfectly benevolent activities while drawing the attention of the conspiracy theorists. This would allow for any debate about domestic espionage and digital convergence to be classed as paranoid. Then the arguments of the conspiracy buffs shown to be verifiably false when it comes to IAO could be used as a kind of straw man attack against those more serious arguments not connected to either the conspiracy "community" or IAO itself. On the other hand the conspiracy could merely be getting confident enough to be blatant.
 
 
tSuibhne
00:46 / 06.11.02
Um, you know you really shouldn't go off your pills untill the doctor says it's ok.
 
 
Nietzsch E. Coyote
03:43 / 19.12.02
Ha! sure I'm paranoid, tSuibhne, I am also usually right.

What I said:
I wouldn't put it past this office to start by buying information off of the corporations.

What the news says now:
Outsourcing Big Brother: Office of Total Information Awareness Relies on Private Sector to Track Americans

Who called it?
 
 
Yagg
04:52 / 24.01.03
Holy shit! They're actually putting the brakes on this thing!

Senate Blocks Funding for Pentagon Database
Reuters
Thursday, January 23, 2003; 7:40 PM

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Saying they feared government snooping against ordinary Americans, U.S. senators voted on Thursday to block funding for a Pentagon computer project that would scour databases for terrorist threats.

By a voice vote, the Senate voted to ban funding for the Total Information Awareness program, under former national security adviser John Poindexter, until the Pentagon explains the program and assesses its impact on civil liberties.

The measure, introduced by Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, also said the computer dragnet being developed could not be deployed without congressional approval, although it allowed exceptions for national security. It was tacked onto a spending package in the Senate, but it is not yet law.

It is now expected to go to House and Senate negotiators. If the negotiators keep the provision in the spending package, it will advance to the House and Senate for final passage before going to the president for signing into law.

"This makes it clear that Congress wants to make sure there is no snooping on law-abiding Americans," Wyden told Reuters after the vote.

He said the electronic data dragnet as proposed was "the most far-reaching government surveillance program in history."

The Defense Department says the aim of the Total Information Awareness project, which is still in its infancy, is to seek patterns in transactions data like credit card bills and travel records to stop terrorist plots.

Wyden and other Democrats announced last week they would try to block funding for it, citing concerns that it will amount to electronic surveillance of personal data of all Americans by the government and trample privacy rights.

Senior Republican senators worked with Wyden on the wording of the Senate measure, including Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. He said he was worried the lines were getting blurred between domestic law enforcement and military security efforts.

CONCERNS ABOUT POINDEXTER

Critics of the project also have expressed concern that the project is being directed by Poindexter, a retired admiral who was convicted of deceiving Congress in the Iran-Contra scandal. His conviction was set aside on the grounds his immunized congressional testimony had been used against him.

A Pentagon spokeswoman defended the program after the Senate vote on Thursday, saying officials continued to believe that the research and development planned was important.

"TIA will develop innovative information technology tools that will give the Department of Defense's intelligence, counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism communities important capabilities to prevent terrorist attacks against the U.S.," the Pentagon spokeswoman said.

The Senate measure requires the Pentagon to report to Congress on the goals of the program within 60 days of the bill's final passage, including recommendations from the Attorney General on minimizing the impact on civil liberties.

The measure also would keep the Pentagon from deploying the program or transferring it to another department, such as the FBI or the new Homeland Security department, without congressional authorization.

But these limitations would not apply if the deployment or transfer of technology was being made for lawful foreign intelligence activities or U.S. military operations outside the United States.

Wyden said there had to be exceptions for national security. "There has got to be congressional approval to deploy these technologies, so this information doesn't get circulated indiscriminately all over government," he said.

"But in striking the balance, when talking about matters of national security, those matters can go forward," he said.

***

A cynic would say that they were just unhappy with Poindexter's record vis-a-vis Congress. On the other hand, I have a friend who works in the news biz and had a chance to talk to a few congresspersons about this. The odd thing was that right from the get-go, none of them seemed to like the idea of the IAO any more than I do. Whaddayaknow. The system might actually work for once. Maybe. We'll see what the counter-move is.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
12:57 / 24.01.03
Wow. Was Kissinger also turned down by the Government or was it just that he resigned before he started?
 
 
Jack Fear
13:17 / 24.01.03
Kissinger resigned. He was being asked, as a condition of employment, to reveal the client list for his private consulting firm so it could be confirmed that there would be no conflict of interest—a common and perfectly reasonable request. He balked, and withdrew his name from consideration.
 
  
Add Your Reply