Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Happy Canada Day

O Canada, I have not forgotten you,
and as I kneel in my canoe, beholding this vision   
of a bookcase, I pray that I remain in your vast,
polar, North American memory.
You are the paddle, the snowshoe, the cabin in the pines.   
You are Jean de Brébeuf with his martyr's necklace of hatchet heads.
You are the moose in the clearing and the moosehead on the wall.
You are the rapids, the propeller, the kerosene lamp.   
You are the dust that coats the roadside berries.   

From "Canada" by Billy Collins


The Keystone Garter said...

A have a workable procedure for a sensor network to look for biolab and AI lab components and such R+D, as well as other extreme WMDs. Swarm of insect robots, brain washing implants, Terminator robotics, other tyrannical sensor networks, things like that. It has been 70 yrs since anyone of talent formulated USA Intelligence Agency doctrine. There is a tradeoff between the risk of tyranny and the risk of WMDs in sensoring the general public's private property. And there is a further main consideration in sensoring jurisdictions with classified materials such as the Pentagon Building, subs, silos, etc.
One time pads will probably a cheaper encryption method than quantyum encyption. For households, sensor logs with a 1 ft wireless range (cameras, piezo coatings, motions detectors, air sniffers, electric CNTs coatings) can be read by a hummingbird-like device so neighbours don't snoop. This can be uploaded to the internet, to a new Intelligence Agency. The IA also has the one time pads (random noise generated using chaotic laser banks at some secure warehouse facility) whose copy is perhaps mailed in a tamperproof envelope.
Trained Raw Data Handlers operate under a dynamic chain of command. The problem with existing IAs is they can monitor their exes without worrying about being demoted fired or charged. The raw data is run through pattern recogntion software at a secure IA facility. This avoid Soviet bureaucracy. Only a select list of WMd components and R+D are looked for. Murders and lesser terrorist offenses are ignored; other IAs not being under these safeguards are not permitted to use the data. So, a person has a cell-culture lab or a virology computer database going in their basement that return a PR hit...the trained PR RDH lead investigator (like T.Cruise in Minority Report) asks a Court or Court and Political Body, for permission to activate further sensors, or to analyze some raw data manually, or perhaps the hit is bad enough that a rapid response SWAT tam is activated to stop an impending attack. The Court or Court and Political Body is the democratic check on power. They can demote an investigator who is not performing well. Trained RDH are subject to a near real-time personal surveillence behaviour log that is analyzed by trained experts who grade the active investigation performance and give the feedback to the Court/PB. Other potential lead investigators are also kept in the loop a bit. There is plenty of scope for simulations to train with and for retired employees to build. This system rests on Courts or C+PB evaluating the tyranny risk using the behaviour log vs the investigator supplying the WMD risk. At some point the raw data is deleted. You don't want to many people to have access to the behaviour log as it suggest weaknesses in the sensor network.
It is harder to watch the watchers and classified actors. Simulations are as good as they don't utilize global public imput/output. Classified actors won't be as skilled in evaluating tradeoffs as would be a lead investigator. Thus I suggest a Court or Court+PB lead the investigation. A scenario is the sensor network picks up evidence of an EMP R+D programme and it is uncertain whether it is permitted (EMPs can damage this network though spare parts can be stockpiled), so the IA wants to look at classified databases. Here there isn't as much tyranny risk. Tyranny is knowledge of political opposition, or military opposition, or private life details. There isn't the latter too much.

The Keystone Garter said...

...So you have the Agency, say a DARPA R+D programme, estimate how classified the data being requested, is. A report card. This gives the classified risk feedback. It is subsequently analyzed thoroughly post-investigation and if a bad estimate, new actors make the subsequent estimate and perhap some jobs are lost. The IA potential investigator (or higher up the IA Chain) provides the WMD risk estimate. Here there need be no potential alternate investigotrs as the Court or Court+PB controls the investigation. It is suggested the IA investigators stay compartmentalized to avoid one potential mole spy/terrorist knowing a whole bunch of classified info.: only investigating one agency or one department or even one programme. Trained RDHs and lead classified investigators might be under lifelong surveillence. This system does not address investigating itself, but having other nations investigate eachother is one solution. Just how much evil to not enforce in the raw data is an issue, but the Select List must be limited.