January 07, 2004
Homeland Security - more of the same?
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |There are a string of interesting articles form GovExec.com (1/06/04) dealing with Homeland Security. For example, did you know that the Office of Homeland Security is creating its own data mining program? Unlike the Pentagon's Total Information Awareness program, the OHS system will monitor data stations (such as sensors) and compare them to "demographic data" rather than "individual" data. Of course that means putting a massive "sensor" network in place (that largely does not exist at this time). Both in the above article, and in this one, the Pentagon is roundly criticized for not taking "privacy issues" into account. Of course, the OHS operation will operate fully within the laws of the US. Of course, privacy has been significantly eroded under recent legislation, but they don't mention that.
OHS doesn't want to get too far on the wrong side of the Pentagon however as they are looking at installing military technology for commercial aircraft. It seems Homeland Security wants to install the MANPADS system on commercial aircraft. MANPADS is a plane mounted counter to shoulder fired missles. They have issued $2 million each to "Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and United Airlines." These contractors will investigate how to "migrate existing military technology to commercial aircraft." The Office of Homeland Security was budgetted $60 million for both 2004 (plans to ask Congress for another $60 million for 2005) for this effort. This doesn't include the cost of actually implementing military systems on commercial craft.
The article notes some problems with the military systems on commercial craft. Namely, bursting munitions can't be used over population areas and laser systems can be blinding to people on the ground. I can actually think of a few more such as:
-weaponizing commercial craft may actually make them more lethal as potential weapons;
- do we want commercial pilots and crews to have to learn how to use this technology?
- Who will service such systems?
Not mentioned is that most of these rocket launchers and missles came from the US to start with and maybe the hundreds of millions might be better spent collecting them and destroying them. Not mentioned are concerns about militarizing commercial aircraft (or the personnel that operate them). Not mentioned are concerns about storing large amounts of military weaponry at airport terminals and repair facilities. As a civilian who has only logic to fight with this sounds like either an expensive boondoggle, or down right dangerous.
Article List
Homeland data mining efforts will differ from Pentagon's
Pentagon failed to study privacy issues in data-mining effort, IG says
Homeland Security eyes military technology for commercial aircraft
Addendum - Not to be left out, the UK is hoping to arm their commercial planes as well - BA in talks on anti-missile lasers (1/08/04)
No related posts
First, GWB et al have to make sure the campaign donars get a good ROI, second this is staying true to form with the existing paranoi run amok.
Kucinich has a novel idea; a Department of Peace, can you imagine a department staffed with Cultural Anththropology, Social Studies and others who study ways to understand other cultures rather than seeing them as another emerging markets. Now that's something to think about....lets turn missles to plow shears, isn't that a concept that Jerry, Pat, Geo are suppose to be in accordance with ??????????
After the fall of "The Wall" we were suppose to start seeing a peace dividend, what ever happend to that radical concept ?
Posted by: biLL wHITLATCH at January 7, 2004 10:16 AMThese ideas to protect us after fear has been drilled into the American people are more and more rediculus. Our weapons are causing all the problems and to make sure that they are loaded on airplanes?!?!?! Sounds like another tragedy waiting to happen.
Outrageous!!!!!!!!
For such a Christian moral system that is so dominant and falsely demonstrated in this American society, these ideas do not align. I agree with "The Department of Peace" idea. But then again look at the competitiveness the majority of Americans enstill in their children. Not thoughts of helping one another but rather rising to the top. Well, to be on top you've got to step on someone's shoulders. United We Stand on the rest of the world. I guess the fear of being labeled different keeps people from questioning the rationality of realizing that this ISN'T what jesus would do.
Posted by: Amy at January 8, 2004 07:55 AMA resounding YES to both of the posters above. Such good thoughts! I LOVE the idea of a Dept. of Peace, it seems so obvious.
And yes, our competitive drives would probably prevent it from being widely supported, but even if it was a tiny little office in WA somewhere, it would be such a step in the right direction.
Posted by: Pamela at January 8, 2004 12:19 PMSo TRUE, Pamela.
Posted by: Amy at January 9, 2004 07:30 AM