Lets get rid of the list of media critical of "total info.". Definitely change the name to avoid confusion with actual program addressed in article. Since none of the works question the program itself but rather the Orwellian vision of critics of this program - I think there is inherent POV. Lotsofissues 12:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is the list of books and movies at the end exploring Total Information Awareness appropriate for this article?
--kwertii
yes. those books are warnings to all about the evils of the IAO Vera Cruz 05:46 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)
- I doubt that they are appropriate. They're all against what TIA is obviously for, so you could argue that listing them is not NPOV. (and no, I don't like TIA either). --KQ
Lets roadtrip and visit him! Vera Cruz 06:58 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)
- We could invite him to join Wikipedia and provide NPOV balance on this article. ;) --Brion
not listing them would be POV--while the books are POV the fact that they were written and are undeniably related to IAO issues is quite NPOV Vera Cruz 05:48 Dec 17, 2002 (UTC)
- Hm. interesting point. --KQ
i added in the research sections here, most of the information was on the iao's own website. anybody have anything to add to that? i must say the more i learn the more scared i am. the time is fast approaching when we all must leave the country to escape dictatorship before it is too late. "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation, we must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." -- Adolf Hitler User:MarcusAurelius 0619 CST
Why don't you go live in Amsterdam for a year and try telling us then how awful the us government is! Vera Cruz 13:08 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)
But Amsterdam's really nice. Lovely old churches, classical music, canals, flowers, friendly people...
What was your point, exactly? Are you perhaps saying that U.S. citizens shouldn't criticise their government on their own soil? I thought that freedom was the whole point of the U.S. constitution. The Anome
Freedom of speech? What freedom of speech?
The logo change
OMFG, the IAO blazon is horrifying. Kingturtle 01:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- Scary, isn't it? Big Brother, anybody? -- Zoe
- My first thought on seeing it is that the IAO would have to be incredibly stupid to use this design. Are we sure it is not a hoax? Why would an agency deliberately use symbols which would inevitably evoke memories of 1984/freemasonic conspiracies/world domination? You'd think they would pretend to be warm, fuzzy, and protective.... -- Someone else 02:56 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- True, I can't find the image at http://www.darpa.mil/iao/ Kingturtle 02:59 21 May 2003 (UTC)
- it's true; they pulled it after public backlash. I did see it there just after the program was announced. Koyaanis Qatsi P.S. another P.R. stunt: the Total Information Awareness program is now the "Terrorist Information Awareness" program. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&ncid=581&e=4&u=/nm/20030520/tc_nm/attack_privacy_dc
- The original Total Information Awareness logo can also be seen at the net archive, at http://web.archive.org/web/20021027211118/http://www.darpa.mil/iao/
- This link no longer works. The memoryhole.org reference below goes to a web page that does not match the format of the main darpa.mil in late 2002 as documented at archive.org. Not taking a stand, just noting the peculiar. -wr
According to http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/iao-logo.htm, they deleted the logo. See http://www.thememoryhole.org/policestate/iao/iao-original.htm for what their website supposedly originally looked like. -- Zoe
- I just wondered if anyone had seen it actually on their website (is memoryhole.org a reliable source? I have/had no idea.) But if KQ saw it on the actual site, I guess it's just a case of REALLY bad public relations rather than hoax! -- Someone else 03:06 21 May 2003 (UTC)
I saw the site when it first came up, that was the logo! Pizza Puzzle
The ACLU has a page on this peculiar logo change as well: The much-discussed original and the new, less frightening "sanitized" version. I also saw the original logo myself at the official site at the time. --Vinsci 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
...
Well, the Illuminati only have a limited degree of influence here in Wikipedia... The whole concept of a free, self-sustaining, god-forbid DEMOCRATIC online encyclopaedia goes directly against the agenda of most groups that could be described as 'Illuminati' (such as the Vrill society)...
J.A.M.M
I put an NPOV dispute warning on this (it's accurate, I'm disputing the neutrality right here) because of the second paragraph and also the end of the first: is it really necessary to bring up Iran-Contra? --Charles A. L. 17:23, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
- I think so. It's Poindexter's main claim to fame - most people, if they've heard of him at all, will know him in connection with Iran-Contra. It's not really disputed that he was involved, so how's that POV? The public controversy surrounding his appointment centered on his role in Iran-Contra, so that must also be mentioned.. Kwertii 19:36, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- It's what we said, not how we said it. Well, actually, you're not wrong, so I guess in part it is how we said it:
- former National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan and chief architect of the Iran-Contra Affair.
- This makes these each seem like roles he's had in the same way -- "first he was hired in National Security, then they transferred him to Illegal Covert Operations." Except in my most cynical moments I'm inclined to believe it was the national security part of his résumé that recommended him for this job, not his criminal activities. I don't think removing (or at least moving) the Iran-contra reference would detract from the article. You clearly disagree, so I'm not changing it. However, if it is needless, its very presence could be taken as POV.
- Perhaps a more blatantly neutral phrasing, something like "controversy over Poindexter's integrity followed his appointment to the [IAO] position due to his role in the Iran-Contra scandal," which is what's in John Poindexter, would blunt that impression somewhat. --Charles A. L. 20:01, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)
Since no one else got off their butts and did it, I edited the article to rephrase the items identified as NPOV, and removed the NPOV warning.
Also, please see Talk:LifeLog.
"implented" typo
Under Genisys, "implented" = "implemented". Great article, by the way.
Seems like the IAO homepage has vanished from darpa.mil. Anybody know where it went? Google won't help, neither will the darpa search.
Joke?
Is this article a joke? Does this really exist? It sounds like something out of a bad novel, not reality. -Branddobbe 02:33, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- No, it's not a joke. Please see mass surveillance as well as the articles that link to it. And that's not the full story. --Vinsci 16:10, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)