Oregon Daily Emerald 

August 7, 2003, Thursday

SECTION: COLUMN

LENGTH: 565 words

HEADLINE: Defense projects are 'disturbing'

BYLINE: By Ryan Ziols, Oregon Daily Emerald

SOURCE: U. Oregon

DATELINE: Eugene, Ore.

BODY:
What is most disturbing about the recent information gathering and analysis
projects of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is not the possibility
of grossly invading privacy or compromising civil liberties. The Total
Information Awareness Program -- now conveniently referred to by the Department
of Defense as the Terrorism Information Program in order to dispel any
misconceptions about the aim of the program -- and the recent proposal of
including "terrorism futures" in the market are frightening because they reveal
a fundamental inability for government agencies to develop a legitimate plan for
protecting United States citizens from terrorism.

Certainly, the idea of monitoring financial transactions in order to gain
greater access to "insider" knowledge about terrorist threats and regime changes
is a wonderful academic exercise in considering a possible application of game
theory to predicting real-world events. Similarly, monitoring suspicious
financial transactions through TIA (feel free to choose its true moniker) to
improve investigation efficiency is clearly not a ludicrous concept.

My confusion, due perhaps to my inexperience with complex systems analysis, lies
in interpreting the predicative power of systems that have become public
knowledge and monitor deviations from the status quo. For, certainly, terrorists
that are savvy enough to learn how to fly airplanes are most likely also capable
of masking aberrant financial transactions and/or manipulating financial
markets. In the latter case, the fact that participants in the proposed
terrorism futures market would have had their identities protected implied that
inspiring fear by mastering marketing strategies would not only be easier -- it
would also be profitable! Plus, should we really trust the Department of Defense
to monitor everyone's finances when it has failed to properly account for the
paltry sum of, oh, several billion dollars?

And, while I don't pretend to suggest that profitability is a factor that
national leaders consider in pioneering defense research, there certainly is
more than a little likelihood that creating computer programs to monitor such
dynamic databases and multiple languages might create a little demand.
Similarly, it might be ever so slightly possible for members close to the
intelligence community to have conflicts of interest. Then again, I might be
mistaking altruism for good old American capitalism.

Still, what is most disgusting about both proposals is not their potential for
abuse or misuse but rather the lack of foresight and consideration that should
be present in the agendas of the nation's elite defense strategists. Should any
member of the Department of Defense consider implementing more realistic
programs to ensure the safety of Americans, perhaps they will consider
encouraging investment in the increasing number of impoverished Americans (who,
according to detailed character profiles, are most likely to become future
terrorists, remember?). Or, perhaps, they might suggest getting to know our
neighbors and sponsor community potlucks. God forbid a little friendly
cooperation should induce flashbacks of the Cold War communists.

Thank god for Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and his refusal to let reality
disappear behind the cap and gown of overly academic analysts.