NEWS: A Warning To The Punk In Guam Who Is Talking Shit

POLITICS: A Warning To The Punk In Guam Who Is Talking Shit

Get ready to be watched, no matter where you are in the world. Media across the world who have something negative to say about the good old United States of America better watch their ass. Homeland Security is coughing up cash to several major universities to develop software that will let the US monitor negative opinions of America or its leaders in newspapers and other publications around the world, and more specifically, Eastasia.



The Ministry of Truth hopes to identify potential threats to the US from countries like our enemy Eurasia. Cornell, the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Utah will receive a combined 2.4 million to do research over three years. They will test the system on articles from 2001 and 2002 searching for topics such as "axis of evil" and the debate over global warming. Our enemy, Eastasia, has often used global warming as a topic to criticize the US.



Hopefully the program will not just identify threats but will also stifle criticism abroad as we have been able to do in the US. At that point we will be truly safe from out enemy, Eurasia.



The system is called natural language processing and has been under development for decades. The problem is interpreting and rating opinions as threats without making errors. In the future a US leader could make a statement, then the Ministry of Peace could use the system to track who our friends are and who our enemies our on the topic.



Currently Federal law prohibits intelligence agencies from creating such a database on American citizens but there are no such restrictions on foreign countries, such as our enemy Eastasia.

Damn, even I think thats taking it too far. You realize FTR you're gonna be in prison as soon as they read your threads right?

(Edited for question)

Is there a book (or maybe a movie) that follows this theme. It just seems too familiar, and I can't figure why

I'm surprised they haven't come up with something like this sooner.

I mean... we have always been at war with Eurasia, haven't we?

Are there newspapers and publications out there with positive views on US leaders? This sounds like a waste of money

There's no substitute for having people who understand the region in question, who live there, reporting what's important. Isn't that what the diplomatic service are for? Reminds me of the way the CIA didn't bother too much with agents because it had spy satellites.

I remember some member of the Bush administration stunning Egyptian diplomats by asking how it was the US was failing to get its message across to the Arab street. The idea that the message itself was the problem didn't seem to occurred to her, resulting in a diplomatic moment of awkwardness.

how is gathering information from published sources remotely "orwellian"?

you politcos need to find a new stock metaphor for the u.s. government. this one has gotten tres stale.

Guam is a protectorate of the U.S.

What time's today's two-minute hate?

Well, not exactly. Natural language processing has been researched for decades, and got a big boost during the cold war, when an automatic russian-english translation program was desired. Calling this one project a 'system called natural language processing' is like saying a that they're developing a system called carpentry because they built a house. It's a far bigger field than just this one program.

If we could spend more effort on counteracting the mindsets that lead to war and less on bullets to kill people after wars have started, I'll say it's a good thing. As long as we don't have effective mind control, it's a step in the right direction.

Perhaps the reason for the automation is that it's not really aimed at national publications but at the internet, including the US user. They could use it in secret, they could try to get its use put into law, they could give a copy to the UK and have them pass alone any juicy results. And Bingo, every critical thing we type is collected, sort, rated and cross checked by our dear leaders.

It is not what they collect, it is what the do with it, and how the let what they do with it influence policy.

Sort of like how the DIA cherrypicked intelligence and used it to justify and invasion based on the fantasy that we would be greeted as liberators and down to 30,000 troops within 6 months.

You remember that don't you?

But you are right. The US makes Orwell look like a scifi hack.

The university staff that got this project must be happy.

$2,399,999.99 for Cheetos, beer and pizza.
1¢ to check google

im so stupid i didn't even get the '84 reference until this:

gezz... i need to read some more

A bunch of grad students get a grant to design some automated "Google mining" software (Kudos to velvetpixel for beating me to this observation BTW).

So...the U.S. wants to know how much the world hates us.

Um...so....?

Maybe it's really for spy satellites, trench coats and mind control rays.

I mean, if we are going to start making up what the money is really for...why not be more creative.

Besides, I don't know many grad students with the clearances to get "black" projects.

Granted, I am speaking from the perspective of a person who has actually read Orwell, but I'm pretty sure mass surveillance epitomizes the term "Orwellian".

from what i read in the article they are collecting information from "newspapers and other publications". but that point aside, you type it on the internet, it's published and far game for consumption. if you don't want someone, anyone, to read it, don't type it. the end.

so the government shouldn't be allowed to consume any information out of a fear of what they might do with it? that seems a bit counterintuitive.

this whole thing is about the government collecting public information in order to inform their policy decisions. you know, like a government's supposed to do. i can understand if you don't agree with the current administration's policies, if you take issue with their definition of what is and is not a potential threat, and if you question their ability to make sound decisions based on the information they have at hand, but to state that it somehow wrong for a government to simply collect public information seems bizarre to me. in trying to assess potential threats it seems wholly logical to keep abreast of what is being said abroad. this program would greatly enhance the government's ability to do just that. i fail to see the problem.

i think the only reason people are leery of this program is because of the administration currently in office, which is odd given that the article states the program won't be up and running for at least 3 years.

riiight. the simple fact that this board even exists for us to have this conversation attests to the sheer, sensationalistic, juvenile bullshit of the comparison. over the years i have publicly and unapologetically decried the major fucking suckage of the government, but not once have i been sent in for re-education. neither has michael moore, john stewart, noam chomsky or howard zinn. you can make some claim that the media fills this role, but the fact that some dipshit is conned into thinking that anything that comes out of sean hannity's mouth is gospel is testament to that individual's inability or unwillingness to think critically and for himself rather than speaking to the success of a government conspiracy of indoctrination.

edited out because i said something totally moronic. feel free to point and laugh.

communist freedom haters..eurasian page boys?

what i meant to say in the edited out post was:

if one uses the strict definition of surveillance, then all governments are "orwellian". the implication of the term is that the government in question is going above and beyond the normal "surveillance" necessary to implement effective policy to a degree which is grossly invasive. a government absolutely has to keep tabs on the world in order to make effective policy. that is, of course, unless you want your government to make its decisions based upon hunches and gut feelings; which i understand is one of the major gripes against the current u.s. administration. or i suppose they could just ask. "hey, azerbaijan, do you like me? check yes or no."

Hello there Mr Strawman builder, nice to see you again. Sorry, perhaps I should have said pervasive mass surveillance. I never discussed whether or not most governments fall under this definition. I simply stated that mass surveillance epitomizes the term "Orwellian". If you think databases for the purposes of "sentiment analysis intended to identify potential threats" is not exactly what Orwell was writing about, you may need to flip through his work once more.

If you would like to discuss the possibility of changing the definition of "Orwellian" so that it makes you feel better about the average government on the planet, well, I guess you can like, not talk to me. In fact, why don't you get working on that right now. There are plenty of other people here who actually said something that your rhetoric might be a suitable response to.

What is your objection to realistic exploration of the possible uses, based on past events and the stated goals those in power?

They're developing software which will scan computerized text for comments which are critical of the US government, in multiple languages. There's no way it's not going to be plugged into the internet, there's a lot of news there you know. There are already operations which monitor "extremist web sites" and the like. When phone call details were processed they fed the computers with 100% of the information they could get. That's the most efficient way to do things. Feed in everything and develop tools for sifting out what you find of interest that day.

It being, at some stage, a black operation is just one possibility. Even then that would be in its use, not the technology.

sorry, i just fail to see how a goverment gathering published information, even en masse, in order to guage public opinion, at home or abroad, is equivalent to a government monitoring and scrutinizing every word, thought and action, no matter how private, of each of its citizens around the clock in order to brutally punish the least bit of dissidence.

i'm not concerned with changing the definition of "orwellian", just its application. i'm sick and tired of the term being tossed around so liberally, without apparent regard for its full implication. it seems to me that anymore the term is often used as a hollow and melodramatic ploy to inspire fear and outrage, often to the detriment of reasoned and objective analysis of the issue at hand. it's become cheap. it's become the political equivalent of crying "wolf". if the u.s. government moves to install a camera in your bedroom, then i'll agree that it's orwellian. until something along those lines happens, i'll continue to roll my eyes at those who use the term, much to the delight of those who get their rocks off being snarky and demeaning to anyone who disagrees with them on the internet.

All the foreign nations need to do is add hot naked chicks in close proximity to their published negative opinions. I'm pretty fond of America more or less. I come to check out the C.E. board here frequently. I usually start to type a counter argument to whatever the complaint of the day is but before you know it I see that there's a new NicoleLee set up and poof! I'm gone!

Sorry sir, but you are confused about what the term means and acting as though it's application implies a lot more than it does. In the same way as one might refer to specific conditions in any film as being expressionist, or noir, or absurdist, etc, etc, it does not mean that the film as a whole typifies any one of those things.

Your crusade to change the application of language is folly until you find yourself verbally squaring off with the guy who tells you that we have reached full on one hundred percent 1984. If changing the way roughly no one speaks is your goal, I proclaim you a winner.