Thanks for the link. This is a very good post on several different levels.
First of all, "the homeland-security industrial complex" (HSIC) is in full swing today as its more-lucrative partner to the "military industrial complex," (MIC) siphoning trillions of dollars out of the pockets of a now severely-anemic Uncle Sugar who is nevertheless "borrowing"
(sic ...) the money to pay for it all. The accounting shenanigans that are still-routinely employed to "hide" the spending have become farce: one day soon it will probably cost $6.00 USD to mail one letter, and so on. All of the names that are listed in that article are doing it for one reason only – vast,
##CLASSIFIED##,
easy money, and the political influence that such money can purchase (with which to get even more money).
This is "good ol' human nature" at its
best most-typical worst. And it's having perverse, ridiculous consequences. There are such vast amounts of this "money" flying around now, that it is literally de-valuing American
money in the eyes of the world's international traders. (Turns out some people want to use money to facilitate the sales of "stuff." How bizarre ...)
But the thing that really scares me about all of this is another angle which is sitting out plain under our noses right now, for all the world to see
if anyone bothers to recognize it for the grave threat that it is: the vast, unregulated, untracked collection of data by
private companies. I've written about this twice at
my own blog, in February and again yesterday.
I fear that the HSIC is thinking only in
(para-)military terms: an electronic "Pearl Harbor" attack of gigantic proportions, originated by a central "army" (located somewhere that we can very-conveniently bomb ...) which is also thinking in military terms. The HSIC has sold the notion that the only way to prevent this sort of thing is to vacuum-up "all of the data on the Internet" and to keep it forever. To accomplish this, they've used various nefarious ways of compromising and thereby collecting all of the data that anyone could theoretically find – probably including that cookie recipe that you invented five years ago and used once that Christmas – while conveniently "forgetting" that this
creates vulnerabilities that can be insidiously exploited by people who have never worn and who never will wear a military uniform.
For instance, it's very easy for an ordinary, innocent "app" that comes pre-installed on a computer (or that becomes popular for any reason) to collect
and transmit to be
forever stored, second-by-second information about exactly where anyone is, within about 15 feet, at all times day and night. It is also possible to siphon their "address book" which, courtesy of Google (and HSIC), effectively is a list of anyone you've ever contacted by any means whether you wanted to keep the address or not.
None of this information is "classified" by anyone. It's considered to be "marketing data." The fact that the app is doing this is also not hidden. Nothing has been "cracked" or penetrated. The software was designed that way, and for innocent legitimate-to-them reasons ... by people who do not think like bad-guys (like it or not)
do.
What could you
do with that kind of information, if you were a really-nasty person or group of people who wanted to commit an insidious crime right under everyone's nose? What would
access to that kind of a data bank enable you to do, that had never been possible to do before? Data-mining is a powerful technology, isn't it? And how would you know, given that the people who might be behind such a thing might simply be employees doing their boring data-analyst jobs using their ordinary and prescribed levels of access? Access to a data-set whose very
existence, let alone nearly-universal disclosure, creates profound social dangers.
The vulnerability is real, the threat is credible, it is staring us in the face, it has been greatly
facilitated by the "homeland security" data-obsession, yet at this point it does
not appear to be on anyone's radar because it does not fit into the para-military profile. (Perhaps because it does not obviously-lead to more billions of dollars of classified spending?) "There are none so blind ... etc."
And
that is what scares the holy hell out of me right now. I don't want to someday pick up a newspaper with a horrible headline and feel like
Cassandra.
If we want to be sure that we are actually
providing "national security," then we'd better stop thinking like greedy billionaires, and allowing only those greedy billionaires access to our decision-makers.
...
...
uhhhhh ...
#undef soapbox