Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

NSA To Datamine Social Networking Sites 346

An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has discovered that the NSA is funding research into the mass harvesting of the information that people post about themselves on social networks. And it could harness advances in Internet technology -- specifically the forthcoming 'semantic web' championed by the Web standards organisation W3C -- to combine data from social networking websites with details such as banking, retail and property records, allowing the NSA to build extensive, all-embracing personal profiles of individuals."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSA To Datamine Social Networking Sites

Comments Filter:
  • by Seth Cohn ( 24111 ) on Friday June 09, 2006 @11:40AM (#15502652)
    Here's some video showing the rally against REAL ID here in New Hampshire.
    We had a wide range of supporters, Left and Right, Atheist and Christian, all working together to help stop this....

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8307405023 976923577 [google.com]
  • by HiThere ( 15173 ) * <charleshixsn@ear ... .net minus punct> on Friday June 09, 2006 @03:32PM (#15504714)
    Actually, I believe that Europe has many large social advantages over the US. And the adjectives that you use reflect your subjective evaluations rather than objective facts.

    From various objective standards the US is in decline relative to not only Europe, but also Japan and China. China is a less desireable place to live, but they are changing in a positive direction, while the US is changing in a negative direction. Will the qualities meet? Will China become superior? This is partially determined by choices that we and our governmental entities make NOW.

    We are discussing one such choice here. This one appears to be one that will make the US a less desireable country to live in, though possibly not "to rule over". I.e., the benefit to the citizenry is not equivalent to the benefit to the government. They are frequently opposites.

  • by HiThere ( 15173 ) * <charleshixsn@ear ... .net minus punct> on Friday June 09, 2006 @09:44PM (#15507122)
    Perhaps you should consider how the "unemployment rate" is calculated, and be aware that different countries calculate it differently.

    I'll agree with you about the proportion of male children in China being a significant negative factor, and raise you that it will decrease social stability over the next few decades. China is still improving as a place to live.

    A declining population is not a negative sign, not as long as a civilization is above the long term carrying capacity of it's area. How it gets dealt with is a significant problem. (But do note that the birthrate of US born citizens is below replacement, also.)

    Death spiral? My, you do take a temporary decline seriously. I'll worry when the population gets below the permanent carrying capacity, and not until them. OTOH, because of their negative attitudes towards foreign immigrants, Japan is experiencing a much steeper decline in population than the rest of the urbanized world. (Is this a purely urban phenomena, or is it based around industrial pollution, as some studies appear to show? It seems "civilization"-wide, concentrated in technical and urbanized areas, but I haven't seen any conclusive studies. At any rate, I'm not worried. We've got a long way to go before we reach a sane population level, and a declining birth-rate seems the most humane possible way to achieve it.

    Remember that more than 95% or our productivity is the result of invested and shared intellectual property of our common ancestors world-wide. Don't be too quick to believe that you have some special right to much more than the average salary, or to claim that someone else should be left to starve. Now it's possible that you DO earn about what is reasonable, many people do. But many, also, take advantage of unfair laws to unfairly monopolize knowledge and resources developed by our common ancestors.

    Human nature being such as it is I will grant the need for a stratified rewards system, but I really doubt that the wealthiest should be rewarded at a rate higher then 1000 times the rate of the poorest. I would consider a rate in the range of 100-200 to be much more reasonable. Welfare? What is the subsidies given to corporations but welfare for the rich and powerful? If you want to, I believe that you could make a good case that no government should be trusted with the right of preventing others from issuing competing curriencies. It would be difficult to find a less honest banker.

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...