WHEN MEDIA ALLOWS ONLY THE PEOPLE IN POWER TO HAVE VOICE AND DOES NOT QUESTION WHAT THEY SAY AS WE DO TODAY---THAT IS PROPAGANDA.
Below we see OXFORD UNIVERSITY--the equivalent of our US Ivy League over in the UK telling us the ethical issues in Artificial Intelligence (A.I.). The 1% call this super-intelligence because it's goal is to have intelligence not hindered by human soul/morality....that is far-right pragmatic nilism at its peak. Imagine the 99% still alive after these few decades of MOVING FORWARD in America with bosses that are not human---they are robotic and have no concept of humanity---they just do what they are programmed. It's like Hitler/Stalin/Mao all having their own fleet of cyborgs creating mayhem in Europe, USSR, and China during those industrial GREAT LEAPS FORWARD or MOVING FORWARD as these same 1% Wall Street global pols are saying today.
We continue the discussion of using social media, all BIG DATA, video-taping of our everyday lives through SMART CITY to then program what will be these ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-----driven robotics. The 1% want a non-living entity with which it can relate.
'Although they can perform a number of intellectual feats of which no individual human is capable, they are not sufficiently integrated to count as “intellects”, and there are many fields in which they perform much worse than single humans. For example, you cannot have a real-time conversation with “the scientific community”'.
It is very important for today's 1% to create artificial intelligence because they don't have talent, intelligence, or ability---they capture the 99% having all that into research that until this point was beneficial to humanity----some would say industrialization was not ---now the 1% are moving into a societal structure no one would want so they need to have an administrative class that simply does what it is told.
BYE, BYE 5% TO THE 1% ----THEY DON'T NEED YOU TO LIE, CHEAT, AND STEAL ANYMORE.
Please glance through this long article to become familiar with the terms and KNOW WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE HAVING THESE DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR VIEWS OF WHAT IS ETHICAL, MORAL, AND INVADES OUR PRIVACY.
The ultimate invasion of privacy---using our thoughts, words, and actions without our knowledge to advance what will be THE BOSS.
Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence
[This is a slightly revised version of a paper published in Cognitive, Emotive and Ethical Aspects of Decision Making in Humans and in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2, ed. I. Smit et al., Int. Institute of Advanced Studies in Systems Research and Cybernetics, 2003, pp. 12-17]
10 Merton Street
Oxford OX1 4JJ
The ethical issues related to the possible future creation of machines with general intellectual capabilities far outstripping those of humans are quite distinct from any ethical problems arising in current automation and information systems. Such superintelligence would not be just another technological development; it would be the most important invention ever made, and would lead to explosive progress in all scientific and technological fields, as the superintelligence would conduct research with superhuman efficiency. To the extent that ethics is a cognitive pursuit, a superintelligence could also easily surpass humans in the quality of its moral thinking. However, it would be up to the designers of the superintelligence to specify its original motivations. Since the superintelligence may become unstoppably powerful because of its intellectual superiority and the technologies it could develop, it is crucial that it be provided with human-friendly motivations. This paper surveys some of the unique ethical issues in creating superintelligence, and discusses what motivations we ought to give a superintelligence, and introduces some cost-benefit considerations relating to whether the development of superintelligent machines ought to be accelerated or retarded.
KEYWORDS: Artificial intelligence, ethics, uploading, superintelligence, global security, cost-benefit analysis
A superintelligence is any intellect that is vastly outperforms the best human brains in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom, and social skills. This definition leaves open how the superintelligence is implemented – it could be in a digital computer, an ensemble of networked computers, cultured cortical tissue, or something else.
On this definition, Deep Blue is not a superintelligence, since it is only smart within one narrow domain (chess), and even there it is not vastly superior to the best humans. Entities such as corporations or the scientific community are not superintelligences either.
Although they can perform a number of intellectual feats of which no individual human is capable, they are not sufficiently integrated to count as “intellects”, and there are many fields in which they perform much worse than single humans. For example, you cannot have a real-time conversation with “the scientific community”.
While the possibility of domain-specific “superintelligences” is also worth exploring, this paper focuses on issues arising from the prospect of general superintelligence. Space constraints prevent us from attempting anything comprehensive or detailed. A cartoonish sketch of a few selected ideas is the most we can aim for in the following few pages.
Several authors have argued that there is a substantial chance that superintelligence may be created within a few decades, perhaps as a result of growing hardware performance and increased ability to implement algorithms and architectures similar to those used by human brains. It might turn out to take much longer, but there seems currently to be no good ground for assigning a negligible probability to the hypothesis that superintelligence will be created within the lifespan of some people alive today. Given the enormity of the consequences of superintelligence, it would make sense to give this prospect some serious consideration even if one thought that there were only a small probability of it happening any time soon.
2. SUPERINTELLIGENCE IS DIFFERENT
A prerequisite for having a meaningful discussion of superintelligence is the realization that superintelligence is not just another technology, another tool that will add incrementally to human capabilities. Superintelligence is radically different. This point bears emphasizing, for anthropomorphizing superintelligence is a most fecund source of misconceptions.
Let us consider some of the unusual aspects of the creation of superintelligence:
· Superintelligence may be the last invention humans ever need to make.
Given a superintelligence’s intellectual superiority, it would be much better at doing scientific research and technological development than any human, and possibly better even than all humans taken together.
One immediate consequence of this fact is that:
· Technological progress in all other fields will be accelerated by the arrival of advanced artificial intelligence.
It is likely that any technology that we can currently foresee will be speedily developed by the first superintelligence, no doubt along with many other technologies of which we are as yet clueless.
The foreseeable technologies that a superintelligence is likely to develop include mature molecular manufacturing, whose applications are wide-ranging:
a) very powerful computers
b) advanced weaponry, probably capable of safely disarming a nuclear power
c) space travel and von Neumann probes (self-reproducing interstellar probes)
d) elimination of aging and disease
e) fine-grained control of human mood, emotion, and motivation
f) uploading (neural or sub-neural scanning of a particular brain and implementation of the same algorithmic structures on a computer in a way that perseveres memory and personality)
g) reanimation of cryonics patients
h) fully realistic virtual reality
· Superintelligence will lead to more advanced superintelligence.
This results both from the improved hardware that a superintelligence could create, and also from improvements it could make to its own source code.
· Artificial minds can be easily copied.
Since artificial intelligences are software, they can easily and quickly be copied, so long as there is hardware available to store them. The same holds for human uploads. Hardware aside, the marginal cost of creating an additional copy of an upload or an artificial intelligence after the first one has been built is near zero. Artificial minds could therefore quickly come to exist in great numbers, although it is possible that efficiency would favor concentrating computational resources in a single super-intellect.
· Emergence of superintelligence may be sudden.
It appears much harder to get from where we are now to human-level artificial intelligence than to get from there to superintelligence. While it may thus take quite a while before we get superintelligence, the final stage may happen swiftly. That is, the transition from a state where we have a roughly human-level artificial intelligence to a state where we have full-blown superintelligence, with revolutionary applications, may be very rapid, perhaps a matter of days rather than years. This possibility of a sudden emergence of superintelligence is referred to as the singularity hypothesis.
· Artificial intellects are potentially autonomous agents.
A superintelligence should not necessarily be conceptualized as a mere tool. While specialized superintelligences that can think only about a restricted set of problems may be feasible, general superintelligence would be capable of independent initiative and of making its own plans, and may therefore be more appropriately thought of as an autonomous agent.
· Artificial intellects need not have humanlike motives.
Human are rarely willing slaves, but there is nothing implausible about the idea of a superintelligence having as its supergoal to serve humanity or some particular human, with no desire whatsoever to revolt or to “liberate” itself. It also seems perfectly possible to have a superintelligence whose sole goal is something completely arbitrary, such as to manufacture as many paperclips as possible, and who would resist with all its might any attempt to alter this goal. For better or worse, artificial intellects need not share our human motivational tendencies.
· Artificial intellects may not have humanlike psyches.
The cognitive architecture of an artificial intellect may also be quite unlike that of humans. Artificial intellects may find it easy to guard against some kinds of human error and bias, while at the same time being at increased risk of other kinds of mistake that not even the most hapless human would make. Subjectively, the inner conscious life of an artificial intellect, if it has one, may also be quite different from ours.
For all of these reasons, one should be wary of assuming that the emergence of superintelligence can be predicted by extrapolating the history of other technological breakthroughs, or that the nature and behaviors of artificial intellects would necessarily resemble those of human or other animal minds.
3. SUPERINTELLIGENT MORAL THINKING
To the extent that ethics is a cognitive pursuit, a superintelligence could do it better than human thinkers. This means that questions about ethics, in so far as they have correct answers that can be arrived at by reasoning and weighting up of evidence, could be more accurately answered by a superintelligence than by humans. The same holds for questions of policy and long-term planning; when it comes to understanding which policies would lead to which results, and which means would be most effective in attaining given aims, a superintelligence would outperform humans.
There are therefore many questions that we would not need to answer ourselves if we had or were about to get superintelligence; we could delegate many investigations and decisions to the superintelligence. For example, if we are uncertain how to evaluate possible outcomes, we could ask the superintelligence to estimate how we would have evaluated these outcomes if we had thought about them for a very long time, deliberated carefully, had had more memory and better intelligence, and so forth. When formulating a goal for the superintelligence, it would not always be necessary to give a detailed, explicit definition of this goal. We could enlist the superintelligence to help us determine the real intention of our request, thus decreasing the risk that infelicitous wording or confusion about what we want to achieve would lead to outcomes that we would disapprove of in retrospect.
4. IMPORTANCE OF INITIAL MOTIVATIONS
The option to defer many decisions to the superintelligence does not mean that we can afford to be complacent in how we construct the superintelligence. On the contrary, the setting up of initial conditions, and in particular the selection of a top-level goal for the superintelligence, is of the utmost importance. Our entire future may hinge on how we solve these problems.
Both because of its superior planning ability and because of the technologies it could develop, it is plausible to suppose that the first superintelligence would be very powerful. Quite possibly, it would be unrivalled: it would be able to bring about almost any possible outcome and to thwart any attempt to prevent the implementation of its top goal. It could kill off all other agents, persuade them to change their behavior, or block their attempts at interference. Even a “fettered superintelligence” that was running on an isolated computer, able to interact with the rest of the world only via text interface, might be able to break out of its confinement by persuading its handlers to release it. There is even some preliminary experimental evidence that this would be the case.
It seems that the best way to ensure that a superintelligence will have a beneficial impact on the world is to endow it with philanthropic values. Its top goal should be friendliness. How exactly friendliness should be understood and how it should be implemented, and how the amity should be apportioned between different people and nonhuman creatures is a matter that merits further consideration. I would argue that at least all humans, and probably many other sentient creatures on earth should get a significant share in the superintelligence’s beneficence. If the benefits that the superintelligence could bestow are enormously vast, then it may be less important to haggle over the detailed distribution pattern and more important to seek to ensure that everybody gets at least some significant share, since on this supposition, even a tiny share would be enough to guarantee a very long and very good life. One risk that must be guarded against is that those who develop the superintelligence would not make it generically philanthropic but would instead give it the more limited goal of serving only some small group, such as its own creators or those who commissioned it.
If a superintelligence starts out with a friendly top goal, however, then it can be relied on to stay friendly, or at least not to deliberately rid itself of its friendliness. This point is elementary. A “friend” who seeks to transform himself into somebody who wants to hurt you, is not your friend. A true friend, one who really cares about you, also seeks the continuation of his caring for you. Or to put it in a different way, if your top goal is X, and if you think that by changing yourself into someone who instead wants Y you would make it less likely that X will be achieved, then you will not rationally transform yourself into someone who wants Y. The set of options at each point in time is evaluated on the basis of their consequences for realization of the goals held at that time, and generally it will be irrational to deliberately change one’s own top goal, since that would make it less likely that the current goals will be attained.
In humans, with our complicated evolved mental ecology of state-dependent competing drives, desires, plans, and ideals, there is often no obvious way to identify what our top goal is; we might not even have one. So for us, the above reasoning need not apply. But a superintelligence may be structured differently. If a superintelligence has a definite, declarative goal-structure with a clearly identified top goal, then the above argument applies. And this is a good reason for us to build the superintelligence with such an explicit motivational architecture.
5. SHOULD DEVELOPMENT BE DELAYED OR ACCELERATED?
It is hard to think of any problem that a superintelligence could not either solve or at least help us solve. Disease, poverty, environmental destruction, unnecessary suffering of all kinds: these are things that a superintelligence equipped with advanced nanotechnology would be capable of eliminating. Additionally, a superintelligence could give us indefinite lifespan, either by stopping and reversing the aging process through the use of nanomedicine, or by offering us the option to upload ourselves. A superintelligence could also create opportunities for us to vastly increase our own intellectual and emotional capabilities, and it could assist us in creating a highly appealing experiential world in which we could live lives devoted to in joyful game-playing, relating to each other, experiencing, personal growth, and to living closer to our ideals.
The risks in developing superintelligence include the risk of failure to give it the supergoal of philanthropy.
DOES ANYONE THINK THESE POLICIES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH PHILANTHROPY?
One way in which this could happen is that the creators of the superintelligence decide to build it so that it serves only this select group of humans, rather than humanity in general. Another way for it to happen is that a well-meaning team of programmers make a big mistake in designing its goal system. This could result, to return to the earlier example, in a superintelligence whose top goal is the manufacturing of paperclips, with the consequence that it starts transforming first all of earth and then increasing portions of space into paperclip manufacturing facilities. More subtly, it could result in a superintelligence realizing a state of affairs that we might now judge as desirable but which in fact turns out to be a false utopia, in which things essential to human flourishing have been irreversibly lost. We need to be careful about what we wish for from a superintelligence, because we might get it.
One consideration that should be taken into account when deciding whether to promote the development of superintelligence is that if superintelligence is feasible, it will likely be developed sooner or later. Therefore, we will probably one day have to take the gamble of superintelligence no matter what. But once in existence, a superintelligence could help us reduce or eliminate other existential risks, such as the risk that advanced nanotechnology will be used by humans in warfare or terrorism, a serious threat to the long-term survival of intelligent life on earth. If we get to superintelligence first, we may avoid this risk from nanotechnology and many others. If, on the other hand, we get nanotechnology first, we will have to face both the risks from nanotechnology and, if these risks are survived, also the risks from superintelligence. The overall risk seems to be minimized by implementing superintelligence, with great care, as soon as possible.
Virtual reality games are the step towards integrating human reactions and emotions into artificial intelligence. The focus on violence and warfare is not a coincidence---this is to where the 1% wants its SUPER-INTELLIGENT robotics to focus. Mind control is high on the list -----here we see very powerful computers which need a tremendous amount of energy ergo 'GREEN' ENERGY CORPORATIONS. This is to what all those massive solar panel power plants will be feeding. The raising of the dead cryonics for the ultimate MEGLOMANIAC.
WE THE PEOPLE must begin our thoughts on ethical and moral issues around this with this unpleasant thought----the 1% think the planet has far too many people and we talked about the deliberate scarcity of food, fresh water, the climate change 5% temperature rise because of this MOVING FORWARD with industrialization----loss of ordinary health care and building conditions for civil war and factioning in the US and around the globe----all ingredients for population control. We know all these robotics research and development is designed to replace the 99% in the workplace to a large degree----retooling how manufacturing is done includes assuring most work is done with robotics. So, we are sitting by and allowing the 1% and their 2% take everything about us through BIG DATA to reach those goals.
IF WE ARE NOT FIGHTING AGAINST THESE TECHNOLOGY AND ROBOTIC ADVANCEMENTS---WE ARE CREATING A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN THAT WILL BE VERY BAD.
This is why I shout-----stop this global technology industry/global markets and rebuild our local economies with each community having a stable, small business economy.
The foreseeable technologies that a superintelligence is likely to develop include mature molecular manufacturing, whose applications are wide-ranging:
a) very powerful computers
b) advanced weaponry, probably capable of safely disarming a nuclear power
c) space travel and von Neumann probes (self-reproducing interstellar probes)
d) elimination of aging and disease
e) fine-grained control of human mood, emotion, and motivation
f) uploading (neural or sub-neural scanning of a particular brain and implementation of the same algorithmic structures on a computer in a way that perseveres memory and personality)
g) reanimation of cryonics patients
h) fully realistic virtual reality
This video-streaming complete with the new name identification of people in the activity being filmed with cell phone cameras is all entered into this BIG DATA database in SUPER-COMPUTERS like the one at Johns Hopkins. Hopkins leads in this technology of course by being that far-right authoritarian, militaristic, spying and surveillance corporation.
Twitter buys artificial intelligence startup WhetlabThrough the acquisition of Whetlab, developed by researchers at Harvard, Toronto, and Sherbrooke universities, Twitter can step up its machine learning efforts.
When US citizens are shouting against all these invasions of privacy this is what we are shouting against. We KNOW this is not only about crazy terrorists---when many Republicans and conservative Democrats are sold that all this surveillance is about public safety from all those people being made poor----
WAKE UP-----THEY ARE NOT TELLING US THE TRUTH.
This is why the Hollywood stars and Wall Street players made populist leaders are all enticing their followers to TWITTER.
RoboticsTwitter’s Artificial Intelligence Knows What’s Happening in Live Video ClipsTwitter has been developing technology that automatically recognizes what’s happening in live video, a step toward sophisticated recommendations.
- by Will Knight
- April 28, 2016
Live-streaming is becoming ever-more popular through smartphone apps such as Periscope from Twitter, Meerkat, and, most recently, Facebook Live. But live video content usually isn’t tagged or categorized well, often because people don’t know what they’ll record until the camera begins rolling.
Twitter’s AI team, known as Cortex, has developed an algorithm that can instantly recognize what’s happening in a live feed. The algorithm can tell, for instance, if the star of a clip is playing guitar, demoing a power tool, or is actually a cat hamming it up for viewers.
“Content is always changing on Periscope, and more generally on live videos,” says Clement Farabet, who is the technology lead for Cortex. Farabet demonstrated the video-recognition technology to MIT Technology Review, showing a screen of about two dozen Periscope feeds, all being tagged in real-time.
Identifying the content of live video is a pretty impressive trick. Researchers have made impressive progress in recent years with algorithms that can identify objects in photographs, but it is much more difficult to do with a live video of varying quality. To do it instantly also requires considerable computing power. Twitter effectively built a custom supercomputer made entirely of graphics processing units (GPUs) to perform the video classification and serve up the results. These chips are especially efficient for the mathematical calculations required for deep learning, but normally they are just one part of a larger computer system.
“It is quite a challenge even for static videos, and for runtime videos they must have a lot of processing power,” says Peter Brusilovsky, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh who studies the personalization of content.
Brusilovsky says that better ways of filtering video are badly needed. “Videos generally aren’t skimmable,” he says. “As a result, recommendation is very important. It’s kind of the missing piece of video.”
Recommending videos usually involves showing a person clips that have been watched by someone else who seems to have similar taste (an approach known as “collaborative filtering”). This is a crude gauge of real interest, though, and it does not work for content that is being broadcast live.
The Cortex team has ambitions to develop a sophisticated recommendation system to help filter and curate all sorts of content shared through the service, based on a user’s previous activity.
The video-recognition technology developed by the Cortex team hasn’t yet made it into any of Twitter’s products, but it’s being tested on Periscope, an app owned by Twitter that lets users transmit live video from their smartphones. The team is using an approach known as deep learning to recognize the activity in clips. Deep learning involves training a large simulated neural network to recognize inputs from a large number of examples. The examples are provided by staff paid to watch videos and add keywords. This tagging process provides a fairly complex semantic understanding of video clips. For example, a video showing a cat may be categorized not just with “cat” but also “animal,” “feline,” “mammal,” and more. This offers a more sophisticated way to explore clips.
Live video is rapidly becoming an important part of the social media landscape.
Twitter acquired Periscope in January 2015, before the app had even launched, for a sum reportedly in excess of $50 million. This followed the breakout success of Meerkat, another app tied to Twitter. Facebook launched its own live video service earlier in 2015, and the company increased the feature’s prominence earlier this month by adding it to the homepage each user sees.
There are no plans as of yet to monetize the technology, and Periscope does not currently feature advertising. But it isn’t hard to imagine how such a tool could be useful for advertising, by algorithmically matching ads to the contents of videos as they are filmed and broadcast. As more and more video moves online, in fact, the algorithm could help Twitter tailor ads to such content a lot more efficiently. Notably, this month the company won the right to broadcast live certain NFL footage.
Ben Edelman, an associate professor at Harvard’s Berkman Center and an expert on online media and advertising, says the technique developed by Twitter could prove important for filtering out copyrighted content as well as undesirable content such as pornography or violence.
But Farabet is just as interested in finding stuff people do want to see. “Having an ability to truly understand what you’re interested in—completely independent of who produced it or when it was produced—is a fundamental capability that we really want to have,” he says.
No one collects BIG DATA more than Amazon.com. This global corporation all online knows everything about us as consumers. Now, it sells and uses all that data to build its own ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE in robotics as to buys and enfolds all startups and existing corporations.
We all know from media that gives all this a positive JOBS, JOBS, JOBS---global corporate campus as city economic development--about Amazon's warehouse employment---most citizens understand Amazon is going robotic for most of those jobs even if Baltimore Sun prints over and over and over that these are job-creating global corporations in Baltimore.
BEZOS has more in mind with this artificial intelligence. You replace the warehouse factory workers with robots -----then you replace the bosses with robots----then you replace the people going to college to be those engineers----all that STEM-----with artificial intelligence......robotics.
What the citizens in Baltimore and other US cities deemed International Economic Zones get is a few decades learning computer code and some assembly line work for robotics. Most of that assembly line work will be done by the global labor pool as robotic manufacturing has been happening for a few decades in Asia.....but Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations are supposed to pose progressive as though all of this is about good technology jobs.
TECHNOLOGY JOBS ARE THE WORST---ONLY BEAT BY FINANCIAL JOBS AS FAR AS BUILDING A STABLE, LOCAL ECONOMY THAT WILL LIFT ALL CITIZENS.
Bezos invests in robotics firm
Aug 21, 2009, 11:31am PDT
Eric Engleman Staff Writer
Amazon.com CEO Jeff Bezos has invested in a Cambridge, Mass.-startup called Heartland Robotics that is working with industrial robots, according to reports. Heartland is still in stealth mode, but says on its website that it's "combining the power of computers -- embodied in robots -- and the extraordinary intelligence of the American workforce, to increase productivity and revitalize manufacturing." That kind of technology could be useful to Amazon's fulfillment centers, which store and ship millions of products for the ecommerce giant.
Heartland raised a total of $7 million in funding. Bezos took part in the deal through his personal investment vehicle, Bezos Expeditions, Xconomy and Mass High Tech report. One of Heartland's co-founders is Rodney Brooks, a professor of robotics at MIT and founder of iRobot, a maker of robots for the government, military and consumers (including a circular vacuum-cleaning robot that glides over the floor).
Bezos Expeditions and Heartland Robotics didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Bezos has spent a lot of time trying to make Amazon's network of fulfillment centers more lean and efficient -- which might explain his interest in industrial robots. Are we going to see giant metal arms packaging up boxes at Amazon warehouses?
Follow my updates on Twitter.
I'm picking on Amazon.com because it is one of the first global online consumer product corporation that allows it to accumulate BIG DATA all over the world. It will be the equivalent of FACEBOOK/Google in that global BIG DATA reach.
Some citizens do not mind having all that personal data taken and used by global corporations. Those of us who do are forced to relinquish our privacy with almost every log-in account we establish. The goal of BIG RETAIL is to move all business online. The WalMarts, Targets, Home Depots-----are already phasing out there physical stores and pushing people to order on line and then come pick up products at a customer counter. Soon that will be all we see of these huge BIG RETAIL----and they will consolidate those customer counters into one big warehouse. So, we are allowing 1% Wall Street pols literally eliminate everyone from being able to work and are using our physical, emotional, intellectual data to do this.
This is why stopping global corporate campuses as control of all economic activity in our US cities is a MUST. We can stop and reverse this---but it is those Wall Street Baltimore Development 'labor and justice' organizations being used to push all this and they target the poor and working class in getting out in support of policy that will harm them most.
EVERYONE IN, NO ONE OUT---BLACK, BROWN, WHITE CITIZENS WILL BE THROWN INTO THESE GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS POLICIES FOR THE 99% OF AMERICAN CITIZENS.
'Another problem with anticipatory shipping is the question about how much a company should be allowed to act on the insights gained from analysing our personal behaviours'
'But as a private individual, I am getting a little concerned about the power predictive analytics puts into the hands of commercial companies'.
Again, most global retail are doing what Amazon is doing with our data----all our local, state, and Federal information is going into this BIG DATA----that is what OPEN GOVERNMENT means. It does not mean open to public transparency---it means everything our government collects in data on its citizens is now free to be bought and used by these artificial intelligence BIG DATA corporations. MARYLAND IS BIG ON 'OPEN GOVERNMENT' for corporations while keeping citizens in the dark.
Amazon: Using Big Data Analytics to Read Your Mind
Posted February 6, 2014
Amazon.com, the Seattle-based ecommerce giant, has always leveraged data. In one of their latest business moves, the company has obtained a patent to ship us goods before we have even made a decision to buy it, purely based on their predictive big data analytics.
I don’t think that back in 1995 when Jeff Bezos started the company in a garage, he could have imagined that it would one day grow into a Fortune 500 global retail empire. I believe that the key building blocks of Amazon’s success are their ability to use data and an eye for the right innovations and patents.
In the early days, when Amazon was primarily a book retailer, the company was the first to extensively use algorithms so that it could provide recommendations for customers: “Customers who bought this item, also bought this one…”. Today, it uses item-to-item collaborative filtering on many data points such as what users have bought before, what they have in their virtual shopping card or wish list, the items they have rated and reviewed, as well as what other similar users have bought, to heavily customize the customer browsing experience.
Another big coup for Amazon was when it obtained the patent for it’s ‘One Click Buy’ feature. This was pure genius and who would have thought a company could ever get a patent for that.
What Amazon has just done is combine the two (strengths in data analytics and it’s instinct for patenting key features) to obtain a patent for what it calls: Anticipatory Shipping.
What Amazon has patented here is the process of shipping an item to a customer in anticipation that this customer will order that product. This means that Amazon believes the big data analytics insights will become so accurate that it can predict who will order what and when. The reason for this is that Amazon wants to be able to deliver products faster. This is also why it negotiated Sunday deliveries and why Amazon started to experiment with unmanned drones that might deliver our parcels in the future and.
Other, more traditional retailers have long used predictive analytics to ensure the right items are in stock, based on past buying patterns as well as social media analytics and weather predictions. What is new here is that Amazon is taking it to a personal level, predicting the items you might buy. This is different to a local supermarket stocking items that the people in that community might want to buy.
One problem with anticipatory shipping is that Amazon has to get it right. If their big data algorithms get it wrong, then it could potentially lose the company a lot of money because the logistics costs for shipping the product out and then returning it would be lost. The way Amazon proposes to deal with cheaper unwanted items is to either heavily discount them or give them away as a free gift to build customer ‘good will’.
Another problem with anticipatory shipping is the question about how much a company should be allowed to act on the insights gained from analysing our personal behaviours. For example, my wife bought a pregnancy swimsuit from Amazon as a present for one of her friends who was expecting a baby. The problem that followed was that for the following 9 months or so she had to look at pregnancy related recommendations or watch pregnancy related ads. Just imagine if she had to return all those diapers, baby blankets or baby wipes that a predictive anticipatory shipping algorithm might send in the future!
As a big data guy, I am fascinated by the increasingly accurate predictions commercial companies can make about our behaviours. As a consumer I am excited about the prospect that the stuff I order will be with me quicker, because it will already be on its way before I place my order. But as a private individual, I am getting a little concerned about the power predictive analytics puts into the hands of commercial companies.
All we just discussed is in the near future----maybe 20 years down the road. Until then 1% Wall Street has this coming decade to install US cities as International Economic Zones under Trans Pacific Trade Pact building all those SUSTAINABLE global corporate campuses and global factories ----with a tremendous amount of energy needed for all these robotics, artificial intelligence, mega-computers, all tied to global technology online businesses.
'Sitting in a restaurant not far from NSA headquarters, the place where he spent nearly 40 years of his life, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together. “We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state,” he says'.
For the immediate future our concern is with the need by the 1% Wall Street and their 2% to create this ONE WORLD GLOBAL CORPORATE TRIBUNAL structure so all these later controls can be installed. This is the far-right authoritarian, militaristic side of BIG DATA----being used to profile citizens, build networks to track individuals, and growing that global human capital distribution system needing lots of personal data on workers as they are moved around the globe. That is for what BIG DATA is geared right now. Remember, if 99% of citizens are reduced to third world wages and living in global corporate campus housing ----fed, clothed, schooled on campus----then there is no intent to create systems of developed nation health care, public education, courts, affordable housing, media----what they are building will only be afforded and accessed by the 1% and their 2%.
THIS IS FOR WHAT OUR PERSONAL DATA IS BEING USED.
Here is the joke about Obama being a Constitutional scholar-----Obama is a scholar in dismantling our US Constitution as are CLINTON/BUSH------
'When Barack Obama took office, Binney hoped the new administration might be open to reforming the program to address his constitutional concerns. He and another former senior NSA analyst, J. Kirk Wiebe, tried to bring the idea of an automated warrant-approval system to the attention of the Department of Justice’s inspector general. They were given the brush-off. “They said, oh, OK, we can’t comment,” Binney says'.
If we remember the discussion on environment when I was shouting against these mega-solar panel plants right here in Utah, Arizona, and Nevada----and this is where all of the NSA surveillance is located----good ole Harry Reid---original Clinton Wall Street player now heading our DNC.
The NSA Is Building the Country’s Biggest Spy Center (Watch What You Say)
- Date of Publication: 03.15.12. 03.15.12
- Time of Publication: 7:24 pm. 7:24 pm
The NSA has become the largest, most covert, and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever.
Under construction by contractors with top-secret clearances, the blandly named Utah Data Center is being built for the National Security Agency. A project of immense secrecy, it is the final piece in a complex puzzle assembled over the past decade. Its purpose: to intercept, decipher, analyze, and store vast swaths of the world’s communications as they zap down from satellites and zip through the underground and undersea cables of international, foreign, and domestic networks. The heavily fortified $2 billion center should be up and running in September 2013. Flowing through its servers and routers and stored in near-bottomless databases will be all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.” It is, in some measure, the realization of the “total information awareness” program created during the first term of the Bush administration--an effort that was killed by Congress in 2003 after it caused an outcry over its potential for invading Americans’ privacy.
But “this is more than just a data center,” says one senior intelligence official who until recently was involved with the program. The mammoth Bluffdale center will have another important and far more secret role that until now has gone unrevealed. It is also critical, he says, for breaking codes. And code-breaking is crucial, because much of the data that the center will handle—financial information, stock transactions, business deals, foreign military and diplomatic secrets, legal documents, confidential personal communications—will be heavily encrypted. According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US. The upshot, according to this official: “Everybody’s a target; everybody with communication is a target.”
For the NSA, overflowing with tens of billions of dollars in post-9/11 budget awards, the cryptanalysis breakthrough came at a time of explosive growth, in size as well as in power. Established as an arm of the Department of Defense following Pearl Harbor, with the primary purpose of preventing another surprise assault, the NSA suffered a series of humiliations in the post-Cold War years. Caught offguard by an escalating series of terrorist attacks—the first World Trade Center bombing, the blowing up of US embassies in East Africa, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, and finally the devastation of 9/11—some began questioning the agency’s very reason for being. In response, the NSA has quietly been reborn. And while there is little indication that its actual effectiveness has improved—after all, despite numerous pieces of evidence and intelligence-gathering opportunities, it missed the near-disastrous attempted attacks by the underwear bomber on a flight to Detroit in 2009 and by the car bomber in Times Square in 2010—there is no doubt that it has transformed itself into the largest, most covert, and potentially most intrusive intelligence agency ever created.
In the process—and for the first time since Watergate and the other scandals of the Nixon administration—the NSA has turned its surveillance apparatus on the US and its citizens. It has established listening posts throughout the nation to collect and sift through billions of email messages and phone calls, whether they originate within the country or overseas. It has created a supercomputer of almost unimaginable speed to look for patterns and unscramble codes. Finally, the agency has begun building a place to store all the trillions of words and thoughts and whispers captured in its electronic net. And, of course, it’s all being done in secret. To those on the inside, the old adage that NSA stands for Never Say Anything applies more than ever.
UTAH DATA CENTER
When construction is completed in 2013, the heavily fortified $2 billion facility in Bluffdale will encompass 1 million square feet.
1 Visitor control center
A $9.7 million facility for ensuring that only cleared personnel gain access.
Designated space for technical support and administrative personnel.
3 Data halls
Four 25,000-square-foot facilities house rows and rows of servers.
4 Backup generators and fuel tanks
Can power the center for at least three days.
5 Water storage and pumpingAble to pump 1.7 million gallons of liquid per day.
6 Chiller plant
About 60,000 tons of cooling equipment to keep servers from overheating.
7 Power substation
An electrical substation to meet the center’s estimated 65-megawatt demand.
8 SecurityVideo surveillance, intrusion detection, and other protection will cost more than $10 million.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Conceptual Site plan
For his part, Inglis simply engaged in a bit of double-talk, emphasizing the least threatening aspect of the center: “It’s a state-of-the-art facility designed to support the intelligence community in its mission to, in turn, enable and protect the nation’s cybersecurity.” While cybersecurity will certainly be among the areas focused on in Bluffdale, what is collected, how it’s collected, and what is done with the material are far more important issues. Battling hackers makes for a nice cover—it’s easy to explain, and who could be against it? Then the reporters turned to Hatch, who proudly described the center as “a great tribute to Utah,” then added, “I can’t tell you a lot about what they’re going to be doing, because it’s highly classified.”
And then there was this anomaly: Although this was supposedly the official ground-breaking for the nation’s largest and most expensive cybersecurity project, no one from the Department of Homeland Security, the agency responsible for protecting civilian networks from cyberattack, spoke from the lectern. In fact, the official who’d originally introduced the data center, at a press conference in Salt Lake City in October 2009, had nothing to do with cybersecurity. It was Glenn A. Gaffney, deputy director of national intelligence for collection, a man who had spent almost his entire career at the CIA. As head of collection for the intelligence community, he managed the country’s human and electronic spies.
Within days, the tent and sandbox and gold shovels would be gone and Inglis and the generals would be replaced by some 10,000 construction workers. “We’ve been asked not to talk about the project,” Rob Moore, president of Big-D Construction, one of the three major contractors working on the project, told a local reporter. The plans for the center show an extensive security system: an elaborate $10 million antiterrorism protection program, including a fence designed to stop a 15,000-pound vehicle traveling 50 miles per hour, closed-circuit cameras, a biometric identification system, a vehicle inspection facility, and a visitor-control center.
Inside, the facility will consist of four 25,000-square-foot halls filled with servers, complete with raised floor space for cables and storage. In addition, there will be more than 900,000 square feet for technical support and administration. The entire site will be self-sustaining, with fuel tanks large enough to power the backup generators for three days in an emergency, water storage with the capability of pumping 1.7 million gallons of liquid per day, as well as a sewage system and massive air-conditioning system to keep all those servers cool. Electricity will come from the center’s own substation built by Rocky Mountain Power to satisfy the 65-megawatt power demand. Such a mammoth amount of energy comes with a mammoth price tag—about $40 million a year, according to one estimate.
Given the facility’s scale and the fact that a terabyte of data can now be stored on a flash drive the size of a man’s pinky, the potential amount of information that could be housed in Bluffdale is truly staggering. But so is the exponential growth in the amount of intelligence data being produced every day by the eavesdropping sensors of the NSA and other intelligence agencies. As a result of this “expanding array of theater airborne and other sensor networks,” as a 2007 Department of Defense report puts it, the Pentagon is attempting to expand its worldwide communications network, known as the Global Information Grid, to handle yottabytes (1024 bytes) of data. (A yottabyte is a septillion bytes—so large that no one has yet coined a term for the next higher magnitude.)
It needs that capacity because, according to a recent report by Cisco, global Internet traffic will quadruple from 2010 to 2015, reaching 966 exabytes per year. (A million exabytes equal a yottabyte.) In terms of scale, Eric Schmidt, Google’s former CEO, once estimated that the total of all human knowledge created from the dawn of man to 2003 totaled 5 exabytes. And the data flow shows no sign of slowing. In 2011 more than 2 billion of the world’s 6.9 billion people were connected to the Internet. By 2015, market research firm IDC estimates, there will be 2.7 billion users. Thus, the NSA’s need for a 1-million-square-foot data storehouse. Should the agency ever fill the Utah center with a yottabyte of information, it would be equal to about 500 quintillion (500,000,000,000,000,000,000) pages of text.
The data stored in Bluffdale will naturally go far beyond the world’s billions of public web pages. The NSA is more interested in the so-called invisible web, also known as the deep web or deepnet—data beyond the reach of the public. This includes password-protected data, US and foreign government communications, and noncommercial file-sharing between trusted peers. “The deep web contains government reports, databases, and other sources of information of high value to DOD and the intelligence community,” according to a 2010 Defense Science Board report. “Alternative tools are needed to find and index data in the deep web … Stealing the classified secrets of a potential adversary is where the [intelligence] community is most comfortable.” With its new Utah Data Center, the NSA will at last have the technical capability to store, and rummage through, all those stolen secrets. The question, of course, is how the agency defines who is, and who is not, “a potential adversary.”
The NSA’S SPY NETWORK
Once it’s operational, the Utah Data Center will become, in effect, the NSA’s cloud. The center will be fed data collected by the agency’s eavesdropping satellites, overseas listening posts, and secret monitoring rooms in telecom facilities throughout the US. All that data will then be accessible to the NSA’s code breakers, data-miners, China analysts, counterterrorism specialists, and others working at its Fort Meade headquarters and around the world. Here’s how the data center appears to fit into the NSA’s global puzzle.—J.B.
1 Geostationary satellites
Four satellites positioned around the globe monitor frequencies carrying everything from walkie-talkies and cell phones in Libya to radar systems in North Korea. Onboard software acts as the first filter in the collection process, targeting only key regions, countries, cities, and phone numbers or email.
2 Aerospace Data Facility, Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado
Intelligence collected from the geostationary satellites, as well as signals from other spacecraft and overseas listening posts, is relayed to this facility outside Denver. About 850 NSA employees track the satellites, transmit target information, and download the intelligence haul.
3 NSA Georgia, Fort Gordon, Augusta, Georgia
Focuses on intercepts from Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. Codenamed Sweet Tea, the facility has been massively expanded and now consists of a 604,000-square-foot operations building for up to 4,000 intercept operators, analysts, and other specialists.
4 NSA Texas, Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio
Focuses on intercepts from Latin America and, since 9/11, the Middle East and Europe. Some 2,000 workers staff the operation. The NSA recently completed a $100 million renovation on a mega-data center here—a backup storage facility for the Utah Data Center.
5 NSA Hawaii, Oahu
Focuses on intercepts from Asia. Built to house an aircraft assembly plant during World War II, the 250,000-square-foot bunker is nicknamed the Hole. Like the other NSA operations centers, it has since been expanded: Its 2,700 employees now do their work aboveground from a new 234,000-square-foot facility.
6 Domestic listening posts
The NSA has long been free to eavesdrop on international satellite communications. But after 9/11, it installed taps in US telecom “switches,” gaining access to domestic traffic. An ex-NSA official says there are 10 to 20 such installations.
7 Overseas listening posts
According to a knowledgeable intelligence source, the NSA has installed taps on at least a dozen of the major overseas communications links, each capable of eavesdropping on information passing by at a high data rate.
8 Utah Data Center, Bluffdale, Utah
At a million square feet, this $2 billion digital storage facility outside Salt Lake City will be the centerpiece of the NSA’s cloud-based data strategy and essential in its plans for decrypting previously uncrackable documents.
9 Multiprogram Research Facility, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Some 300 scientists and computer engineers with top security clearance toil away here, building the world’s fastest supercomputers and working on cryptanalytic applications and other secret projects.
10 NSA headquarters, Fort Meade, Maryland
Analysts here will access material stored at Bluffdale to prepare reports and recommendations that are sent to policymakers. To handle the increased data load, the NSA is also building an $896 million supercomputer center here.
Before yottabytes of data from the deep web and elsewhere can begin piling up inside the servers of the NSA’s new center, they must be collected. To better accomplish that, the agency has undergone the largest building boom in its history, including installing secret electronic monitoring rooms in major US telecom facilities. Controlled by the NSA, these highly secured spaces are where the agency taps into the US communications networks, a practice that came to light during the Bush years but was never acknowledged by the agency. The broad outlines of the so-called warrantless-wiretapping program have long been exposed—how the NSA secretly and illegally bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which was supposed to oversee and authorize highly targeted domestic eavesdropping; how the program allowed wholesale monitoring of millions of American phone calls and email. In the wake of the program’s exposure, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which largely made the practices legal. Telecoms that had agreed to participate in the illegal activity were granted immunity from prosecution and lawsuits. What wasn’t revealed until now, however, was the enormity of this ongoing domestic spying program.
For the first time, a former NSA official has gone on the record to describe the program, codenamed Stellar Wind, in detail. William Binney was a senior NSA crypto-mathematician largely responsible for automating the agency’s worldwide eavesdropping network. A tall man with strands of black hair across the front of his scalp and dark, determined eyes behind thick-rimmed glasses, the 68-year-old spent nearly four decades breaking codes and finding new ways to channel billions of private phone calls and email messages from around the world into the NSA’s bulging databases. As chief and one of the two cofounders of the agency’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center, Binney and his team designed much of the infrastructure that’s still likely used to intercept international and foreign communications.
He explains that the agency could have installed its tapping gear at the nation’s cable landing stations—the more than two dozen sites on the periphery of the US where fiber-optic cables come ashore. If it had taken that route, the NSA would have been able to limit its eavesdropping to just international communications, which at the time was all that was allowed under US law. Instead it chose to put the wiretapping rooms at key junction points throughout the country—large, windowless buildings known as switches—thus gaining access to not just international communications but also to most of the domestic traffic flowing through the US. The network of intercept stations goes far beyond the single room in an AT&T building in San Francisco exposed by a whistle-blower in 2006. “I think there’s 10 to 20 of them,” Binney says. “That’s not just San Francisco; they have them in the middle of the country and also on the East Coast.”
The eavesdropping on Americans doesn’t stop at the telecom switches. To capture satellite communications in and out of the US, the agency also monitors AT&T’s powerful earth stations, satellite receivers in locations that include Roaring Creek and Salt Creek. Tucked away on a back road in rural Catawissa, Pennsylvania, Roaring Creek’s three 105-foot dishes handle much of the country’s communications to and from Europe and the Middle East. And on an isolated stretch of land in remote Arbuckle, California, three similar dishes at the company’s Salt Creek station service the Pacific Rim and Asia.
The former NSA official held his thumb and forefinger close together: “We are that far from a turnkey totalitarian state.”
Binney left the NSA in late 2001, shortly after the agency launched its warrantless-wiretapping program. “They violated the Constitution setting it up,” he says bluntly. “But they didn’t care. They were going to do it anyway, and they were going to crucify anyone who stood in the way. When they started violating the Constitution, I couldn’t stay.” Binney says Stellar Wind was far larger than has been publicly disclosed and included not just eavesdropping on domestic phone calls but the inspection of domestic email. At the outset the program recorded 320 million calls a day, he says, which represented about 73 to 80 percent of the total volume of the agency’s worldwide intercepts. The haul only grew from there. According to Binney—who has maintained close contact with agency employees until a few years ago—the taps in the secret rooms dotting the country are actually powered by highly sophisticated software programs that conduct “deep packet inspection,” examining Internet traffic as it passes through the 10-gigabit-per-second cables at the speed of light.
The software, created by a company called Narus that’s now part of Boeing, is controlled remotely from NSA headquarters at Fort Meade in Maryland and searches US sources for target addresses, locations, countries, and phone numbers, as well as watch-listed names, keywords, and phrases in email. Any communication that arouses suspicion, especially those to or from the million or so people on agency watch lists, are automatically copied or recorded and then transmitted to the NSA.
The scope of surveillance expands from there, Binney says. Once a name is entered into the Narus database, all phone calls and other communications to and from that person are automatically routed to the NSA’s recorders. “Anybody you want, route to a recorder,” Binney says. “If your number’s in there? Routed and gets recorded.” He adds, “The Narus device allows you to take it all.” And when Bluffdale is completed, whatever is collected will be routed there for storage and analysis.
According to Binney, one of the deepest secrets of the Stellar Wind program—again, never confirmed until now—was that the NSA gained warrantless access to AT&T’s vast trove of domestic and international billing records, detailed information about who called whom in the US and around the world. As of 2007, AT&T had more than 2.8 trillion records housed in a database at its Florham Park, New Jersey, complex.
Verizon was also part of the program, Binney says, and that greatly expanded the volume of calls subject to the agency’s domestic eavesdropping. “That multiplies the call rate by at least a factor of five,” he says. “So you’re over a billion and a half calls a day.” (Spokespeople for Verizon and AT&T said their companies would not comment on matters of national security.)
After he left the NSA, Binney suggested a system for monitoring people’s communications according to how closely they are connected to an initial target. The further away from the target—say you’re just an acquaintance of a friend of the target—the less the surveillance. But the agency rejected the idea, and, given the massive new storage facility in Utah, Binney suspects that it now simply collects everything. “The whole idea was, how do you manage 20 terabytes of intercept a minute?” he says. “The way we proposed was to distinguish between things you want and things you don’t want.” Instead, he adds, “they’re storing everything they gather.” And the agency is gathering as much as it can.
Once the communications are intercepted and stored, the data-mining begins. “You can watch everybody all the time with data- mining,” Binney says. Everything a person does becomes charted on a graph, “financial transactions or travel or anything,” he says. Thus, as data like bookstore receipts, bank statements, and commuter toll records flow in, the NSA is able to paint a more and more detailed picture of someone’s life.
The NSA also has the ability to eavesdrop on phone calls directly and in real time. According to Adrienne J. Kinne, who worked both before and after 9/11 as a voice interceptor at the NSA facility in Georgia, in the wake of the World Trade Center attacks “basically all rules were thrown out the window, and they would use any excuse to justify a waiver to spy on Americans.” Even journalists calling home from overseas were included. “A lot of time you could tell they were calling their families,” she says, “incredibly intimate, personal conversations.” Kinne found the act of eavesdropping on innocent fellow citizens personally distressing. “It’s almost like going through and finding somebody’s diary,” she says.
In secret listening rooms nationwide, NSA software examines every email, phone call, and tweet as they zip by.
But there is, of course, reason for anyone to be distressed about the practice. Once the door is open for the government to spy on US citizens, there are often great temptations to abuse that power for political purposes, as when Richard Nixon eavesdropped on his political enemies during Watergate and ordered the NSA to spy on antiwar protesters. Those and other abuses prompted Congress to enact prohibitions in the mid-1970s against domestic spying.
Before he gave up and left the NSA, Binney tried to persuade officials to create a more targeted system that could be authorized by a court. At the time, the agency had 72 hours to obtain a legal warrant, and Binney devised a method to computerize the system. “I had proposed that we automate the process of requesting a warrant and automate approval so we could manage a couple of million intercepts a day, rather than subvert the whole process.” But such a system would have required close coordination with the courts, and NSA officials weren’t interested in that, Binney says. Instead they continued to haul in data on a grand scale. Asked how many communications—”transactions,” in NSA’s lingo—the agency has intercepted since 9/11, Binney estimates the number at “between 15 and 20 trillion, the aggregate over 11 years.”
When Barack Obama took office, Binney hoped the new administration might be open to reforming the program to address his constitutional concerns. He and another former senior NSA analyst, J. Kirk Wiebe, tried to bring the idea of an automated warrant-approval system to the attention of the Department of Justice’s inspector general. They were given the brush-off. “They said, oh, OK, we can’t comment,” Binney says.
Sitting in a restaurant not far from NSA headquarters, the place where he spent nearly 40 years of his life, Binney held his thumb and forefinger close together. “We are, like, that far from a turnkey totalitarian state,” he says.
Locally, Baltimore is captured to MOVING FORWARD with these policies by our rigged elections and silence from all sources that would be educating citizens about these goals. Shouting against TIF tax laws and water bills sound important in the short-term but these gorilla REAL issues are never spoken and most Baltimore leaders know what goals are.
There was controversy on Johns Hopkins' campus when all this NSA/surveillance policy started to turn on professors and department within Hopkins-----seems Hopkins' executives and staff don't like BIG DATA BIG SURVEILLANCE either. Everyone understands this is bad stuff and yet those in our US cities deemed International Economic Zones----that 5% to the 1% across all populations keep rigging these primary elections making sure only those establishment candidates willing to do this are advanced in elections.
Baltimore has been central in Federal Medicare and Medicaid data collection and storage. It has no oversight and accountability as I said creating trillions of dollars of fleecing of our Trusts----and it would have been our Baltimore location that would have provided that oversight. This is BIG DATA-----and where it could have been used to provide EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTH POLICY with several decades of health information---it is simply being used as a corporate research data pool.
'He ascribes this massive amount of data to the emergence of cheap compute, better imaging and more information, and calls it a new way of doing science. “In every area of science we are generating a petabyte of data, and unless we have the equivalent of the 21st-century microscope, with faster networks and the corresponding computing, we are stuck,” Szalay said'.
The problem for reversing these policies becomes harder the closer to these kinds of facilities citizens are. Since most citizens in Maryland are tied to these BIG DATA/NSA/CIA/NIH now global corporate-controlled Federal government---with most jobs coming from cyber-security----building security----financial security----militarized security----developing all this PRIVACY-ISSUE with no open discussion on ETHICS, MORALITY, AND OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS.
TO MY FRIENDS ACROSS THE NATION----FIGHT TO KEEP YOUR ECONOMIES LOCAL AND KEEP THESE GLOBAL CORPORATIONS FROM EXPANDING INTO YOUR NECK OF THE WOODS----
We like the physics and space research but we KNOW more is going on.
For science, big data is the microscope of the 21st century
Stacey Higginbotham Nov 8, 2011 - 3:03 PM CDT
Johns Hopkins is taking a $1.2 million grant from the National Science Foundation to build a 100 gigabit per second network to shuttle data from the campus to other large computing centers at national labs and even Google (s goog). The network will be capable of transferring an amount of data equivalent to 80 million file cabinets filled with text each day.
The head of the project, Dr. Alex Szalay, detailed the plans, which include gear from networking gear from Cisco, (s csco) Arista and Solarflare; Nvidia GPUs; and 66,000 x86 cores. That’s on top of the actual fiber that will connect a new, 1-megawatt data center inside the physics building to regional Mid-Atlantic Crossroads research and engineering network at the University of Maryland.
The new data center at Johns Hopkins, awaiting its 100 Gbps backbone.
That connection will be the 100 Gbps element funded by the NSF, and the Mid-Atlantic Crossroads network connects out to Pittsburgh and then onto Chicago via other 100 Gbps networks that are growing in number across the country. Inside the campus, Szalay, who is the alumni centennial chair in physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins, is setting up a 40 Gbps network between buildings that deal with lots of data such as the medical and computer science hubs. “To keep looking at big data sets we have to move the big data to a location where we can analyze it, and the stumbling block is [data sets of more than] 100 terabytes because of the speed of the network,” Szalay said.
He ascribes this massive amount of data to the emergence of cheap compute, better imaging and more information, and calls it a new way of doing science. “In every area of science we are generating a petabyte of data, and unless we have the equivalent of the 21st-century microscope, with faster networks and the corresponding computing, we are stuck,” Szalay said.
In his mind, the new way of using massive processing power to filter through petabytes of data is an entirely new type of computing which will lead to new advances in astronomy and physics, much like the microscope’s creation in the 17th century led to advances in biology and chemistry. When thought of in that light, the creation of 100 gigabit per second research network at Johns Hopkins becomes not just a fast network, but an essential tool for research and discovery, an essential component of the 21st-century microscope.
For example, he described trying to send a 150-terabyte chunk of astronomy data for analysis to Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee as “painful” because of the limits the 10 gigabit connection present between the university and the national lab. When he looks ahead 10 years and anticipates a colleague’s next-generation astronomy project currently underway that Google is supporting with 14 million compute hours, he believes it could generate 100 petabytes of data.
If that kind of data avalanche is a mere decade away, it appears our faster networks can’t come soon enough. It’s a good thing Johns Hopkins expects the 100-gigabit network out and the 40-gigabit intra-campus network will be functioning in April.
For those not knowing the significance of having a Governor Brown of California appoint former-Homeland Security Napolitano to head the largest public university system in the nation-----this is it. It was her job to continue the corporatization of the strongest citizen political activism throughout modern history. She as well is installing the same Homeland Security surveillance and militarized policing that is coming to all our university campuses. First, these universities are no longer schools----they are corporate R and D----with proprietary research needing top security----they are not the old-school basic STEM research and public welfare social democratic universities.
Second, unlike students in Baltimore where most of the schools left functioning are affluent and private----and so students tend to already be on board with far-right authoritarian Libertarian Marxism----California et al are filled with students that are not on board. Those campuses when not being closed for lack of funding are being wired for surveillance. All of the privacy issues described this week are playing out more heavily for our young adults because they are the ones most likely to start this revolution-----so lots of social media videos of activism----lots of concerns about groups infiltrating other groups----and with this coming economic crash from bond market fraud bringing a deeper recession/depression and unemployment----we must guard against CREATING FACTIONS----PLEASE BE A 99% AGAINST A 1%! This does not mean everyone is in one movement---it means all movements work together!
'For many, the rise of the homeland security campus has provoked some basic questions about the aims and principles of a higher education: Whom does the university serve? Whom does it protect? Who is to speak? Who is to be silenced? To whom does the future belong'?
Campus spies. Pepper spray. SWAT teams. Welcome to Repress U, class of 2012.
By Michael Gould-WartofskyMarch 22, 2012
This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com.
Campus spies. Pepper spray. SWAT teams. Twitter trackers. Biometrics. Student security consultants. Professors of homeland security studies. Welcome to Repress U, class of 2012.
Since 9/11, the homeland security state has come to campus just as it has come to America’s towns and cities, its places of work and its houses of worship, its public space and its cyberspace. But the age of (in)security had announced its arrival on campus with considerably less fanfare than elsewhere—until, that is, the “less lethal” weapons were unleashed in the fall of 2011.
Today, from the City University of New York to the University of California, students increasingly find themselves on the frontlines, not of a war on terror, but of a war on “radicalism” and “extremism.” Just about everyone from college administrators and educators to law enforcement personnel and corporate executives seems to have enlisted in this war effort. Increasingly, American students are in their sights.
In 2008, I laid out seven steps the Bush administration had taken to create a homeland security campus. Four years and a president later, Repress U has come a long way. In the Obama years, it has taken seven more steps to make the university safe for plutocracy. Here is a step-by-step guide to how they did it.
1. Target Occupy
Had there been no UC Davis, no Lt. John Pike, no chemical weapons wielded against peacefully protesting students and no cameras to broadcast it all, Americans might never have known just how far the homeland security campus has come in its mission to police its students. In the old days, you might have called in the National Guard. Nowadays, all you need is an FBI-trained, federally funded, and “less lethally” armed campus police department.
The mass pepper-spraying of students at UC Davis was only the most public manifestation of a long-running campus trend in which, for officers of the peace, the pacification of student protest has become part of the job description. The weapons of choice have sometimes been blunt instruments, such as the extendable batons used to bludgeon the student body at Berkeley,Baruch and the University of Puerto Rico. At other times, tactical officers have turned to “less-lethal” munitions, like the CS gas, beanbag rounds and pepper pellets fired into crowds at Occupy protests across the University of California system this past winter.
Yet for everything we see of the homeland security campus, there is a good deal more that we miss. Behind the riot suits, the baton strikes, and the pepper-spray cannons stands a sprawling infrastructure made possible by multimillion-dollar federal grants, “memoranda of understanding” and “mutual aid” agreements among law enforcement agencies, counter-terrorism training, an FBI-sponsored “Academic Alliance,” and 103 Joint Terrorism Task Forces (which provide “one-stop shopping” for counterterrorism operations to more than fifty federal and 600 state and local agencies).
“We have to go where terrorism takes us, so we often have to go onto campuses,” FBI Special Agent Jennifer Gant told Campus Safety Magazine in an interview last year. To that end, campus administrators and campus police chiefs are now known to coordinate their operations with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “special advisors,” FBI “campus liaison agents,” an FBI-led National Security Advisory Board, and a Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, which instructs local law enforcement in everything from “physical techniques” to “behavioral science.” More than half of campus police forces already have “intelligence-sharing agreements” with these and other government agencies in place.
2. Get a SWAT team
Since 2007, campus police forces have decisively escalated their tactics, expanded their arsenals, and trained ever more of their officers in SWAT-style paramilitary policing. Many agencies acquire their arms directly from the Department of Defense through a surplus weapons sales program known as “1033,” which offers, among other things, “used grenade launchers (for the deployment of less lethal weapons)… for a significantly reduced cost.”
According to the most recent federal data available, nine out of ten campus agencies with sworn police officers now deploy armed patrols authorized to use deadly force. Nine in ten also authorize the use of chemical munitions, while one in five make regular use of Tasers. Last August, an 18-year old student athlete died after being tased at the University of Cincinnati.
Meanwhile, many campus police squads have been educated in the art of war through regular special weapons training sessions by “tactical officers’ associations” which run a kind of SWAT university. In October, UC Berkeley played host to an “Urban Shield” SWAT training exercise involving local and campus agencies, the California National Guard, and special police forces from Israel, Jordan, and Bahrain. And since 2010, West Texas A&M has played host to paramilitary training programs for police from Mexico.
In October, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte got its very own SWAT team, equipped with MP-15 rifles, M&P 40 sidearms, and Remington shotguns. “We have integrated SWAT officers into the squads that serve our campus day and night,” boasted UNC Charlotte Chief of Police Jeff Baker. The following month, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, a SWAT team staged an armed raid on an occupied building, pointing assault rifles at the heads of activists, among them UNC students.
3. Spy on Muslims
The long arm of Repress U stretches far beyond the bounds of any one campus or college town. As reported by the Associated Press this winter, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) and its hitherto secret “Demographics Unit” sent undercover operatives to spy on members of the Muslim Students Association at more than twenty universities in four states across the Northeast beginning in 2006.
None of the organizations or persons of interest were ever accused of any wrongdoing, but that didn’t stop NYPD detectives from tracking Muslim students through a “Cyber Intelligence Unit,” issuing weekly “MSA Reports” on local chapters of the Muslim Students Association, attending campus meetings and seminars, noting how many times students prayed, or even serving as chaperones for what they described as “militant paintball trips.” The targeted institutions ran the gamut from community colleges to Columbia and Yale.
According to the AP’s investigation, the intelligence units in question worked closely not only with agencies in other cities, but with an agent on the payroll of the CIA. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, facing mounting calls to resign, has issued a spirited defense of the campus surveillance program, as has Mayor Michael Bloomberg. “If terrorists aren’t limited by borders and boundaries, we can’t be either,” Kelly said in a speech at Fordham Law School.
The NYPD was hardly the only agency conducting covert surveillance of Muslim students on campus. The FBI has been engaging in such tactics for years. In 2007, UC Irvine student Yasser Ahmed was assaulted by FBI agents, who followed him as he was on his way to a campus “free speech zone.” In 2010, Yasir Afifi, a student at Mission College in Santa Clara, California, found a secret GPS tracking device affixed to his car. A half-dozen agents later knocked on his door to ask for it back.
4. Keep the undocumented out
Foreign students are followed closely by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through its Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS). As of 2011, the agency was keeping tabs on 1.2 million students and their dependents. Most recently, as part of a transition to the paperless SEVIS II—which aims to “unify records”—ICE has been linking student files to biometric and employer data collected by DHS and other agencies.
“That information stays forever,” notes Louis Farrell, director of the ICE program. “And every activity that’s ever been associated with that person will come up. That’s something that has been asked for by the national security community… [and] the academic community.”
Then there are the more than 360,000 undocumented students and high-school graduates who would qualify for permanent resident status and college admission, were the DREAM Act ever passed. It would grant conditional permanent residency to undocumented students who were brought to the United States as children. When such students started “coming out” as part of an “undocumented and unafraid” campaign, many received DHS notices to appear for removal proceedings. Take 24-year-old Uriel Alberto, of Lees-McRae College, who recently went on hunger strike in North Carolina’s Wake County jail; he now faces deportation (and separation from his US-born son) for taking part in a protest at the state capitol.
Since 2010, the homeland security campus has been enlisted by the state of Arizona to enforce everything from bans on ethnic studies programs to laws like S.B. 1070, which makes it a crime to appear in public without proof of legal residency and is considered a mandate for police to detain anyone suspected of being undocumented. Many undocumented students have turned down offers of admission to the University of Arizona since the passage of the law, while others have stopped attending class for fear of being detained and deported.
5. Keep an eye on student spaces and social media
While Muslim and undocumented students are particular targets of surveillance, they are not alone. Electronic surveillance has expanded beyond traditional closed-circuit TV cameras to next-generation technologies like IQeye HD megapixel cameras, so-called edge devices (cameras that can do their own analytics), and Perceptrak’s video analytics software, which “analyzes video from security cameras 24×7 for events of interest,” and which recently made its debut at Johns Hopkins University and Mount Holyoke College.
At the same time, students’ social media accounts have become a favorite destination for everyone from campus police officers to analysts at the Department of Homeland Security.
In 2010, the DHS National Operations Center established a Media Monitoring Capability (MMC). According to an internal agency document, MMC is tasked with “leveraging news stories, media reports and postings on social media sites… for operationally relevant data, information, analysis, and imagery.” The definition of operationally relevant data includes “media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities,” “partisan or agenda-driven sites,” and a final category ambiguously labeled “research/studies, etc.”
With the Occupy movement coming to campus, even university police departments have gotten in on the action. According to a how-to guide called “Essential Ingredients to Working with Campus Protests” by UC Santa Barbara police chief Dustin Olson, the first step to take is to “monitor social media sites continuously,” both for intelligence about the “leadership and agenda” and “for any messages that speak to violent or criminal behavior.”
6. Co-opt the classroom and the laboratory
At a time when entire departments and disciplines are facing the chopping block at America’s universities, the Department of Homeland Security has proven to be the best-funded department of all. Homeland security studies has become a major growth sector in higher education and now has more than 340 certificate- and degree-granting programs. Many colleges have joined the Homeland Security and Defense Education Consortium, a spinoff of the US Northern Command (the Department of Defense’s “homeland defense” division), which offers a model curriculum to its members.
This emerging discipline has been directed and funded to the tune of $4 billion over the last five years by DHS. The goal, according to Dr. Tara O’Toole, DHS Undersecretary of Science & Technology, is to “leverag[e] the investment and expertise of academia… to meet the needs of the department.” Additional funding is being made available from the Pentagon through its blue-skies research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the “intelligence community” through its analogous Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity.
At the core of the homeland security-university partnership are DHS’s twelve centers of excellence. (A number that has doubled since I first reported on the initiative in 2008.) The DHS Office of University Programs advertises the centers of excellence as an “extended consortium of hundreds of universities” which work together “to develop customer-driven research solutions” and “to provide essential training to the next generation of homeland security experts.”
But what kind of research is being carried out at these centers of excellence, with the support of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars each year? Among the forty-one “knowledge products” currently in use by DHS or being evaluated in pilot studies, we find an “extremist crime database,” a “Minorities at Risk for Organizational Behavior” dataset, analytics for aerial surveillance systems along the border and social media monitoring technologies. Other research focuses include biometrics, “suspicious behavior detection” and “violent radicalization.”
7. Privatize, subsidize and capitalize
Repress U has not only proven a boon to hundreds of cash-starved universities, but also to big corporations as higher education morphs into hired education. While a majority of the $184 billion in homeland security funding in 2011 came from government agencies like DHS and the Pentagon, private sector funding is expected to make up an increasing share of the total in the coming years, according to the Homeland Security Research Corporation, a consulting firm serving the homeland security industry.
Each DHS Center of Excellence has been founded on private-public partnerships, corporate co-sponsorships, and the leadership of “industry advisory boards” which give big business a direct stake and say in its operations. Corporate giants allied with DHS Centers of Excellence include:
*Lockheed Martin at the Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), based at the University of Maryland at College Park.
*Alcatel-Lucent and AT&T at the Rutgers University-based Command, Control, and Interoperability Center for Advanced Data Analysis (CICADA).
*ExxonMobil and Con Edison at the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (CREATE), based at the University of Southern California.
*Motorola, Boeing, and Bank of America at the Purdue University-basedCenter for Visual Analytics for Command, Control, and Interoperability Environments (VACCINE).
*Wal-Mart, Cargill, Kraft and McDonald’s at the National Center for Food Protection and Defense (NCFPD), based at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.
What’s more, universities have struck multimillion-dollar deals with multinational private security firms like Securitas, deploying unsworn, underpaid, often untrained “protection officers” on campus as “extra eyes and ears.” The University of Wisconsin-Madison, in one report, boasts that police and private partners have been “seamlessly integrated.”
Elsewhere, even students have gotten into the business of security. The private intelligence firm STRATFOR, for example, recently partnered with the University of Texas to use its students to “essentially parallel the work of… outside consultants” but on campus, offering information on activist groups like the Yes Men.
Step by step, at school after school, the homeland security campus has executed a silent coup in the decade since September 11th. The university, thus usurped, has increasingly become an instrument not of higher learning, but of intelligence gathering and paramilitary training, of profit-taking on behalf of America’s increasingly embattled “1 percent.”
Yet the next generation may be otherwise occupied. Since September 2011, a new student movement has swept across the country, making itself felt most recently on March 1 with a national day of action to defend the right to education. This Occupy-inspired wave of on-campus activism is making visible what was once invisible, calling into question what was once beyond question, and counteracting the logic of Repress U with the logic of nonviolence and education for democracy.
For many, the rise of the homeland security campus has provoked some basic questions about the aims and principles of a higher education:
Whom does the university serve? Whom does it protect? Who is to speak? Who is to be silenced? To whom does the future belong?
The guardians of Repress U are uninterested in such inquiry. Instead, they cock their weapons. They lock the gates. And they prepare to take the next step.