There’s a conference in Washington, DC, in March that explores technologies for intelligence and terrorism prevention.

The 4th Annual Government Convention on Emerging Technologies will focus on the impact of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act signed into law by President Bush in December 2004.

The departments and agencies of the National Security Community are currently engaged in the most comprehensive transformation of policy, structure, doctrine, and capabilities since the National Security Act of 1947.

Many of the legal, policy, organizational, and cultural challenges to manage the National Security Community as an enterprise and provide a framework for fielding new capabilities are being addressed. However, there are many emerging technologies and commercial best practices available to help the National Security Community achieve its critical mission of keeping America safe and secure.

There’s a lot of interesting stuff on the agenda, including some classified sessions. I’m especially interested in this track:

Track Two: Attaining Tailored Persistence

Explore the technologies required to attain persistent surveillance and tailored persistence.

What does “persistent surveillance” mean, anyway?

Posted on February 3, 2005 at 9:07 AM6 Comments


Israel Torres February 3, 2005 10:27 AM

“persistent surveillance”:

Neo: What the hell is this?
Trinity: It’s necessary, Neo. For our protection.
Neo: From what.
Trinity: From you. Take off your shirt.
Neo: What?
Switch: Stop the car. Listen to me, Copper-top. We don’t have
time for twenty questions. Right now there’s only one rule, our way or the highway.
Neo: Fine.
Trinity: Please, Neo. You have to trust me
Neo: Why?
Trinity: Because you have been down there, Neo. You know that
road. You know exactly where it ends. And I know that’s not
where you want to be…. Apoc, lights. Lie back, lift up your
Neo: What is that thing?
Trinity: We think you’re bugged…. Try and relax…. Come on. Come on.
Switch: It’s on the move.
Trinity: Shit.
Switch: You’re going to lose it.
Trinity: No I’m not. Clear.
Neo: Jesus Christ, that thing’s real?

Davi Ottenheimer February 3, 2005 4:12 PM

Good question! I noted the session called “Persistent Surveillance Opportunities & Challenges” by Colonel Michael B. Leahy. Aside from possible military connotations of the term “persistence” the topicssounds like it might be another take on identity (ID) management.

How do you manage a surveillance system with dispersed and unrelated sensors (including unmanned drones in the air) and still keep track of a target as it moves around? You need to create unique identity and build an infrastructure to enable ID persistence throughout the system.

tHe mAdd pRoFeSsOr February 10, 2005 3:19 PM

Yeah, this “persistent surveillance” idea is an awsome nightmare specture due to inevitably overcome us all.

Bad idea designed by well intended people without a clue as to the eventual outcome they will bring upon themselves, and those who participate in their schemes.

There is little doubt in my mind that this ties to the RFID techno nightmare and eventually the microchip implant to buy or sell.

Besides being scripturally described as the “mark of the beast” it also is ovbiously flawed in precept, because in a world where not everyone forgives mistakes, to have everything known by people is to insure that unless you are perfect yourself, you are going to have a lot of problems and charges brought against you.

And show me a perfect man or woman. Ha, ha, those who think they are, usually have the most forgotton or hidden sins and or mistakes.

Privacy is the ONLY possible substitute for grace, and in this world of ours, few people carry much grace for those they dislike. As well as the fact most people have more than a few, that they dislike (or at least a few they dislike).

Therefore this idea spells tyrany for at least a few, and most likely for many, because whoever is at the top of the power pyramid of this total information structure, once it is in place, they will have more knowledge of other people than they could possibly be trusted with to use for the benefit of those other people.

Enjoyed the blog on the “paint” item and the suggestion that we paint it on our neighbors items. Ha, ha, that cynical reality cuts right to the chase to explain the folly of all this bs our so called leaders are trying to foist upon us all.

There is no such thing as a foolproof system, whenever a human is in the link.
And the smarter ones will always eventually figure a way to defeat the system for their own selfish gain. And the smarter ones (unless perfectly upright individuals themselves)are usually the most evil ones. Therefore to be locked into a system like this, unless you are the most evil, you will fair poorly in the long run. To give control to somebody is to give the opportunity to them to abuse their position to your own hurt. To give away your privacy is to give away that control.

Historically people only gave away their privacy to those they trusted, people they became intimate friends with. Even then sometimes that trust has always been abused in some cases, but at least in those cases there was the remedy to never trust that friend that abused your confidence again. But in a world system where would that option exist? Quite simple, it wouldn’t, and then you have been had, or in other words completely screwed with no opportunity to work yourself out of whatever jam it was you were in.

Who in their right mind would want to be forced to obey each and every cockamennie law some idiot dreamed up?
Always drive 55, and always get caught when you didn’t? Always wear your seatbelt? Always never drink and drive even 2 beers if they make that the national limit? Never smoke in a public place? Always pay for every mistake you make in full, whether you intentionally perpetrated it or not?

And the opportunities for abuse get much worse than such minor inconviences as those. How about always do community service for a given amount of time, and that “community service” actually was to manicure some bigshots estate, foisted off as if it was a “public park” but the only thing “public” about it was the fact that people could sightsee there once a year on some special occaision designated by the real hidden owner?


These geeks that dream up all this techno pricacy invasion technics are gonna make themselves one big nightmnare.

You do not have to be Chester Molester, or Baby Face Nelson, to have a few things that you would just as soon not have known by everybody in the whole world.

Leave a comment


Allowed HTML <a href="URL"> • <em> <cite> <i> • <strong> <b> • <sub> <sup> • <ul> <ol> <li> • <blockquote> <pre> Markdown Extra syntax via

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.