"....then why shouldn't they collect such records all the time? There may be terrorist plots which the government is unaware of which could be stopped by such practices, after all."

..... I decided to throw into the mix for discussion the moral, ethical and legal ramifications put forth in the movie, THE MINORITY REPORT...

For those who are not into movies as much as others, TMR is a sci-fi style movie dealing with a futuristic police force (Pre-Crime) that can view the future and uses such viewings to apprehend murderers before they can commit the murder.

As I write this, the parallels between that movie and the real life Las Vegas incident are becoming more compelling and relevant.

Towhit, would we want authorities to use such an obvious and gross invasion of privacy to to save innocent lives?? What if the lives saved were you or your family??

Michale.....

Most of your points are, as you say, of the "agree to disagree" variety.. I don't think that the 4th Amendment is a suicide pact. If the government has to over step some bounds to save lives, well.. In that case, the end surely justifies the means..

However, with your comments on "robot warfare".. I think we are a lot closer to "Terminator" style warfare than you want to admit.. Missiles and drones are "robots" of a sort, but they are simply instruments of a *human's* decision to kill..

In the case of the Iraq robots I posted, they are simply sent out on patrol and the actual decision to kill (albeit a programmed 'if A happens and you are B, then you will do C' decision) is made by the robot itself.. At least, that is my understanding of the underlying principles...

And I also agree with you regarding the "Three Laws".. The fiction that is "Three Laws Safe" (as popularized in the recent Will Smith hit, I ROBOT) is simply not possible with todays technology..

But, I do believe that such a concept in AI is worth striving for.. Especially in light of the idea that we may very well see an I, ROBOT or BICENTENNIAL MAN (Robin Williams) type society in our lifetime...

Michale.....

Very interesting comments. While we're not going to agree (as I have previously stated, I am an absolutist on the Fourth Amendment), I would like to respond to some of the points you brought up.

You logic is good, Spock would approve. But taken to its logical end, if the government is allowed to vacuum up things like hotel records (I saw the same show, it was on PBS, possibly either "Frontline" or "America at a Crossroads"), to prevent crimes from happening in the first place, then why shouldn't they collect such records all the time? There may be terrorist plots which the government is unaware of which could be stopped by such practices, after all.

Unfortunately, this is where George Orwell's name inevitably arises.

Your point on the FISA court hiring some computer-literate judges is right on the mark. When technology and law collide, it is best to get some expert opinions on the matter! In the initial draft to this story, I was going to write something like:

========================
If that's true, that would require massive changes to the legal system. Because it is then the computer who decides what could be evidence and what probably is not. If the computer is programmed to think a certain communication is fishy in any way, then it spits the message out for a human being to read. Or, more accurately, it is the computer programmer who creates the software, and whoever inputs the keywords used to search. While the programmer and the data inputter are indeed human, the program runs on its own -- so who is really responsible?
======================

I was wondering if anyone would catch that. We are so conditioned to imagining "computers" as "sentient beings" when in fact they're not. Any Turing machine (that is, every computer on the market today) just does what it is told by a human programmer. I even anthropomorphized them myself by saying "If a computer is programmed to think..." when that is completely inaccurate.

But I left the issue out, as it just added a layer of complexity that wasn't entirely necessary to the conversation I was provoking.

Your further cite of the Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics shows you understand the deeper issue all too well. The Three Laws would be absolutely impossible to actually program into a computer brain, at least as computers are manufactured today. I think Asimov even admitted this, later in his life. Of course, a "positronic brain" may be different, which leaves it an open issue....

But in any case, we are seeing in Iraq the very beginnings of robot warfare, you are right. Now, you can argue that guided missles, or even the first crude guided torpedos, were the birth of such warfare, but the new flying drones are truly the beginning of a new era in warfare. I'm not talking about human-controlled drones, where someone with a joystick flies the thing by remote control, I'm talking about planes which can fly themselves, carry out a mission, and return on their own -- with no human intervention.

We're not quite at "Terminator" level of robot warfare, but anyone who looks for milestones in technology should be aware of this development.

As for your final question, just like with Air Traffic Control computers (if two planes collide in midair as a result of a computer bug, who is responsible?) I would personally answer "the programmer and the software tester" are responsible for the deaths. Not everyone would agree with me, but that's the way I see it.

-CW

For those of you unfamiliar with the case, let me briefly outline it. Federal authorities had received reliable intelligence that during a New Years Eve celebration (2004's, I think), there was going to be a terrorist attack. Federal agents moved in and started "data mining" the area. They obtained hotel records from all the hotels on their guests, looking for anyone that "fit the profile".

As it turned out, the intelligence was false. No attack was planned..

But one segment of this special dealt with this one couple who were completely indignant that the Federal Government would "violate" their privacy by obtaining their hotel records.

I simply cannot understand this for one simple and basic reason..

Let's play the scenario in reverse.. Let's say that there HAD been a terrorist attack in Las Vegas. Hundreds were killed. During the investigation to determine who was responsible, Federal agents obtain all the records of the local hotels, trying to find anyone that "fit the profile". No one could object to this. It is only good police work. It's a natural effort of the investigative process...

So, this begs the question. If people do no have a problem with this so-called "violation of privacy" AFTER the fact, *why is it a problem BEFORE the fact??* People are saying that they don't mind the so-called invasion of privacy to INVESTIGATE the brutal murder of hundreds of innocent men, women and children. But they get all indignant and scream "GESTAPO!!!" if it is done to SAVE the lives of hundreds of innocent men, women and children..

Herein lies the hypocrisy of the America Bashers. Personally, I don't have any problem whatsoever with my phone being tapped or my emails being read or my actions being monitored. And this is for two reasons. One, because having been in the business, I know the necessity of such actions, when warranted. And two, I have nothing to hide.

Now, tieing this into CW's article, I think he hit the entire issue out of the park with this statement:

"Civil libertarians may be more comfortable with a computer tapping their lines than an NSA gnome. Security-at-all-costs people may be more comfortable with the implied efficiency of such a system, since it would free up agents to concentrate on the suspicious messages."

But what CW failed to mention is what I see as the best way to go..

FISA judges will have approve **the computer program** that will mine the data. And THAT is where, I believe, the consternation lies. I see a NEW court becoming an offshoot (or replacing) the FISA court. A court that will deal specifically in computer operated data mining operations. The Judges in this court will be knowledgeable in computer software. Knowledgeable enough to be able to rule on the constitutionality of what a computer can and can't do.

Questions like this are already being asked. For the first time, armed autonomous robots are being used in Iraq, despite the famous "Three Laws"....

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/08/httpwwwnational.html

One of the comments after the article sums up the dilemma perfectly.

"If the robot kills an innocent civilian, who is at fault?"

Technology is joining the war on terror with a vengeance.. It is past time that questions such as the one asked about the use of armed robots be asked. Debates such as the one CW proposes MUST be done and be done soon...

If we do not, then the decisions will be made for us.. And they may not be to our liking...

Michale.....

Once done, it is an easy matter to tie that together with voter caging, automated voting mechiness, and get control of the entire Electorate, combined with highly controlled localized and directed media, helping fine-tune the 'message of the day', etc.

While these are interesting questions, this is already occurring... ie... it isn't speculation.

How do we know?

We know that AT&T set up a "way-station" where all calls and data are transmitted directly to the NSA from the AT&T whistleblower.

We know that the sheer volume of these communications precludes humans from sifting each one.

Ergo... we know that the "sifting" is being done BY computers programed to "hit" on key words... and then THOSE communications are pulled for the law enforcement agent.

We also know that the REST of the communications are stored in a database (data-mining).

In essence, you have one program doing at least two activities that are, by our current laws, illegal, and was the logical next step of all the other spy programs we've seen throughout the years.