Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

The Total Information Awareness Project Lives On

Technology behind the Pentagon's controversial data-mining project has been acquired by NSA, and is probably in use.

By Mark Williams

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

In April, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the advocacy organization for citizens' digital rights, filed evidence to support its class-action lawsuit alleging that telecom giant AT&T gave the National Security Agency (NSA), the ultra-secret U.S. agency that's the world's largest espionage organization, unfettered access to Americans' telephone and Internet communications. The lawsuit is one more episode in the public controversy that erupted in December 2005, when the New York Times revealed that, following September 11, President Bush authorized a far-reaching NSA surveillance program that included warrantless electronic eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mails of individuals within the United States.

Critics charged that the Bush administration had violated both the Constitution's Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unwarranted search or seizure, and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which requires eavesdropping warrants to be obtained from a special court of judges empowered for that purpose.

In February 2006, the controversy intensified. Reports emerged that component technologies of the supposedly defunct Total Information Awareness (TIA) project -- established in 2002 by the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop advanced information technology to counter terrorists, then terminated by Congress in 2003 because of widespread criticism that it would create "Orwellian" mass surveillance -- had been acquired by the NSA.

Washington's lawmakers ostensibly killed the TIA project in Section 8131 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 2004. But legislators wrote a classified annex to that document which preserved funding for TIA's component technologies, if they were transferred to other government agencies, say sources who have seen the document, according to reports first published in The National Journal. Congress did stipulate that those technologies should only be used for military or foreign intelligence purposes against non-U.S. citizens. Still, while those component projects' names were changed, their funding remained intact, sometimes under the same contracts.

Thus, two principal components of the overall TIA project have migrated to the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA), which is housed somewhere among the 60-odd buildings of "Crypto City," as NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, MD, is nicknamed. One of the TIA components that ARDA acquired, the Information Awareness Prototype System, was the core architecture that would have integrated all the information extraction, analysis, and dissemination tools developed under TIA. According to The National Journal, it was renamed "Basketball." The other, Genoa II, used information technologies to help analysts and decision makers anticipate and pre-empt terrorist attacks. It was renamed "Topsail."

Has the NSA been employing those TIA technologies in its surveillance within the United States? And what exactly is the agency doing, anyway?

The hearings that the Senate Judiciary Committee convened in February to consider the NSA's surveillance gave some clues. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, maintaining the administration's defense against charges that it violated the Fourth Amendment and FISA, told senators, firstly, that Article II of the U.S. Constitution granted a president authority to conduct such monitoring and, secondly, that the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) passed after September 11 specified that the president could "use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future terrorist acts. Regarding FISA, Gonzalez claimed, the NSA had sidestepped its requirements to obtain warrants for electronic eavesdropping in particular cases. But, overall, the attorney general said, FISA worked well and the authorities had used it increasingly. The available facts support Gonzalez's contention: while the FISA court issued about 500 warrants per year from 1979 through 1995, in 2004 (the last year for which public records exist) 1,758 warrants were issued.

Comments

  • TIA
    Time to fire up the old PGP.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (bill)
    04/26/2006
    Posts:1
    • PGP
      What is PGP?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Sam)
      04/26/2006
      Posts:1
      • tia
        encryption; google "pgp"
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (sid)
        04/26/2006
        Posts:1
  • PGP
    It may hide the content but the NSA will still know who's talking to who.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Tom)
    04/26/2006
    Posts:1
    • PGP / TOR
      TOR.  From the same Navy that John Poindexter was an admiral in.  TOR is to traffic analysis as PGP is to message content.  Google 6,266,704 and feel lucky.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (quercetin)
      04/29/2006
      Posts:1
  • PGP
    The more who encrypt, the more unweildy TIA will become
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (P1)
    04/26/2006
    Posts:1
  • Orwellian TIA
    Stop Big Brother NOW!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Vic Anderson)
    04/30/2006
    Posts:1
  • TIA
    Is not more new and mere weared informatic idea?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Vladimir)
    05/01/2006
    Posts:1
    • TIA
      Yes and no. Increasing the ability to exchange greater amounts of information over a wider area should definately be considered improvement; but if an individual is stripped of the ability to choose who he wants to share that information with, a freer exchange of information can be invasive, and threatening.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (pud)
      05/03/2006
      Posts:1
  • Confidential but threatening information
    How can we identify and extract only threatening information, and leave the rest secret?  How can we professionalize the persons handling that information?  Threatening information about any person or entity should be available only to profesionalized persons following lawful regulations, employed by lawful entities responsible for protecting the community.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (owennmtz)
    07/14/2006
    Posts:1
    • Threatening Informatoin?
      Seems like we are protecting the repulic ( entrenched power holders) NOT the public. Of what value are individual rights when the power base is threatened? Where is the ACLU?
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Dale)
      07/14/2006
      Posts:1
      • Where's the ACLU?
        Thank goodness they weren't officed in the WTC or they wouldn't have known it was coming either!!!  They'd be dead.  Yea, who needs intelligence?  Clinton was right...burp!
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (clan_enoch)
        07/14/2006
        Posts:1
        • Re: Where's the ACLU?
          Thank Goodness they didn't have offices in WTC? One of the WTC buildings had an outpost for the CIA New York City office where the US corporate execs after foreign travel would be debriefed, etc. Administrative functions primarily. Do you think anyone would have just intentionally disregarded the information in order to observe what to the buildings can happen to see had the specific threat of that attack been caught in advance? If so then you are a scoundrel who projects his own ignorance upon others.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          forexmant
          01/18/2010
          Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Malleable Maps, Artistic Robots and Bubble Interfaces
Technology Review January/February 2010

Current Issue

Security in the Ether
Information technology's next grand challenge will be to secure the cloud--and prove we can trust it.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.