Hubbry Logo
Total Information AwarenessTotal Information AwarenessMain
Open search
Total Information Awareness
Community hub
Total Information Awareness
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Total Information Awareness
Total Information Awareness
Total Information Awareness
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Diagram of the Total Information Awareness system from the official (decommissioned) Information Awareness Office website
Presentation slide produced by DARPA describing TIA

National Security Agency surveillance
Map of global NSA data collection as of 2007, with countries subject to the most data collection shown in red
Programs
Pre-1978
Since 1978
Since 1990
Since 1998
Since 2001
Since 2007
Databases, tools etc.
GCHQ collaboration
Legislation
Institutions
Lawsuits
Whistleblowers
Publication
Related
Concepts
Collaboration
United States
Five Eyes
Other

Total Information Awareness (TIA) was a mass detection program[clarification needed] by the United States Information Awareness Office. It operated under this title from February to May 2003 before being renamed Terrorism Information Awareness.[1][2]

Based on the concept of predictive policing, TIA was meant to correlate detailed information about people in order to anticipate and prevent terrorist incidents before execution.[3] The program modeled specific information sets in the hunt for terrorists around the globe.[4] Admiral John Poindexter called it a "Manhattan Project for counter-terrorism".[5] According to Senator Ron Wyden, TIA was the "biggest surveillance program in the history of the United States".[6]

Congress defunded the Information Awareness Office in late 2003 after media reports criticized the government for attempting to establish "Total Information Awareness" over all citizens.[7][8][9]

Although the program was formally suspended, other government agencies later adopted some of its software with only superficial changes. TIA's core architecture continued development under the code name "Basketball". According to a 2012 New York Times article, TIA's legacy was "quietly thriving" at the National Security Agency (NSA).[10]

Program synopsis

[edit]

TIA was intended to be a five-year research project by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The goal was to integrate components from previous and new government intelligence and surveillance programs, including Genoa, Genoa II, Genisys, SSNA, EELD, WAE, TIDES, Communicator, HumanID and Bio-Surveillance, with data mining knowledge gleaned from the private sector to create a resource for the intelligence, counterintelligence, and law enforcement communities.[11][12] These components consisted of information analysis, collaboration, decision-support tools, language translation, data-searching, pattern recognition, and privacy-protection technologies.[13]

TIA research included or planned to include the participation of nine government entities: INSCOM, NSA, DIA, CIA, CIFA, STRATCOM, SOCOM, JFCOM, and JWAC.[13] They were to be able to access TIA's programs through a series of dedicated nodes.[14] INSCOM was to house TIA's hardware in Fort Belvoir, Virginia.[15]

Companies contracted to work on TIA included the Science Applications International Corporation,[16] Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Schafer Corporation, SRS Technologies, Adroit Systems, CACI Dynamic Systems, ASI Systems International, and Syntek Technologies.[17]

Universities enlisted to assist with research and development included Berkeley, Colorado State, Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Cornell, Dallas, Georgia Tech, Maryland, MIT, and Southampton.[17][18]

Mission

[edit]

TIA's goal was to revolutionize the United States' ability to detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists and decipher their plans, thereby enabling the U.S. to take timely action to preempt and disrupt terrorist activity.

To that end, TIA was to create a counter-terrorism information system that:[19]

  • Increased information coverage by an order of magnitude and afforded easy scaling
  • Provided focused warnings within an hour after a triggering event occurred or an evidence threshold was passed
  • Automatically queued analysts based on partial pattern matches and had patterns that covered 90% of all previously known foreign terrorist attacks
  • Supported collaboration, analytical reasoning and information sharing so that analysts could hypothesize, test and propose theories and mitigating strategies, so decision-makers could effectively evaluate the impact of policies and courses of action.

Components

[edit]

Genoa

[edit]
Main article: Project Genoa

Unlike the other program components, Genoa predated TIA and provided a basis for it.[20] Genoa's primary function was intelligence analysis to assist human analysts.[21] It was designed to support both top-down and bottom-up approaches; a policymaker could hypothesize an attack and use Genoa to look for supporting evidence of it or compile pieces of intelligence into a diagram and suggest possible outcomes. Human analysts could then modify the diagram to test various cases.[22]

Genoa was independently commissioned in 1996 and completed in 2002 as scheduled.

Genoa II

[edit]
Main article: Project Genoa II

While Genoa primarily focused on intelligence analysis, Genoa II aimed to provide means by which computers, software agents, policymakers, and field operatives could collaborate.[21]

Genisys

[edit]
Graphic describing the goals of the Genysis project

Genisys aimed to develop technologies that would enable "ultra-large, all-source information repositories".[23] Vast amounts of information were to be collected and analyzed, and the available database technology at the time was insufficient for storing and organizing such enormous quantities of data. So they developed techniques for virtual data aggregation to support effective analysis across heterogeneous databases, as well as unstructured public data sources, such as the World Wide Web. "Effective analysis across heterogenous databases" means the ability to take things from databases which are designed to store different types of data—such as a database containing criminal records, a phone call database and a foreign intelligence database. The Web is considered an "unstructured public data source" because it is publicly accessible and contains many different types of data—blogs, emails, records of visits to websites, etc.—all of which need to be analyzed and stored efficiently.[23]

Another goal was to develop "a large, distributed system architecture for managing the huge volume of raw data input, analysis results, and feedback, that will result in a simpler, more flexible data store that performs well and allows us to retain important data indefinitely".[23]

Scalable social network analysis

[edit]

Scalable social network analysis (SSNA) aimed to develop techniques based on social network analysis to model the key characteristics of terrorist groups and discriminate them from other societal groups.[24]

[edit]
Graphic displaying a simulated application of the evidence extraction and link discovery (EELD) project

Evidence extraction and link discovery (EELD) developed technologies and tools for automated discovery, extraction and linking of sparse evidence contained in large amounts of classified and unclassified data sources (such as phone call records from the NSA call database, internet histories, or bank records).[25]

EELD was designed to design systems with the ability to extract data from multiple sources (e.g., text messages, social networking sites, financial records, and web pages). It was to develop the ability to detect patterns comprising multiple types of links between data items or communications (e.g., financial transactions, communications, travel, etc.).[25] It is designed to link items relating potential "terrorist" groups and scenarios, and to learn patterns of different groups or scenarios to identify new organizations and emerging threats.[25]

Wargaming the asymmetric environment

[edit]

Wargaming the asymmetric environment (WAE) focused on developing automated technology that could identify predictive indicators of terrorist activity or impending attacks by examining individual and group behavior in broad environmental context and the motivation of specific terrorists.[26]

Translingual information detection, extraction and summarization

[edit]

Translingual information detection, extraction and summarization (TIDES) developed advanced language processing technology to enable English speakers to find and interpret critical information in multiple languages without requiring knowledge of those languages.[27]

Outside groups (such as universities, corporations, etc.) were invited to participate in the annual information retrieval, topic detection and tracking, automatic content extraction, and machine translation evaluations run by NIST.[27] Cornell University, Columbia University, and the University of California, Berkeley were given grants to work on TIDES.[17]

Communicator

[edit]
Diagram describing capabilities of the "communicator" project

Communicator was to develop "dialogue interaction" technology to enable warfighters to talk to computers, such that information would be accessible on the battlefield or in command centers without a keyboard-based interface. Communicator was to be wireless, mobile, and to function in a networked environment.[28]

The dialogue interaction software was to interpret dialogue's context to improve performance, and to automatically adapt to new topics so conversation could be natural and efficient. Communicator emphasized task knowledge to compensate for natural language effects and noisy environments. Unlike automated translation of natural language speech, which is much more complex due to an essentially unlimited vocabulary and grammar, Communicator takes on task-specific issues so that there are constrained vocabularies (the system only needs to be able to understand language related to war). Research was also started on foreign-language computer interaction for use in coalition operations.[28]

Live exercises were conducted involving small unit logistics operations with the United States Marines to test the technology in extreme environments.[28]

Human identification at a distance

[edit]
Diagram describing capabilities of the "human identification at a distance" project[29]

The human identification at a distance (HumanID) project developed automated biometric identification technologies to detect, recognize and identify humans at great distances for "force protection", crime prevention, and "homeland security/defense" purposes.[29]

The goals of HumanID were to:[29]

  • Develop algorithms to find and acquire subjects out to 150 meters (500 ft) in range.
  • Fuse face and gait recognition into a 24/7 human identification system.
  • Develop and demonstrate a human identification system that operates out to 150 meters (500 ft) using visible imagery.
  • Develop a low-power millimeter wave radar system for wide field of view detection and narrow field of view gait classification.
  • Characterize gait performance from video for human identification at a distance.
  • Develop a multi-spectral infrared and visible face recognition system.

A number of universities assisted in designing HumanID. The Georgia Institute of Technology's College of Computing focused on gait recognition. Gait recognition was a key component of HumanID, because it could be employed on low-resolution video feeds and therefore help identify subjects at a distance.[30] They planned to develop a system that recovered static body and stride parameters of subjects as they walked, while also looking into the ability of time-normalized joint angle trajectories in the walking plane as a way of recognizing gait. The university also worked on finding and tracking faces by expressions and speech.[18]

Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute (part of the School of Computer Science) worked on dynamic face recognition. The research focused primarily on the extraction of body biometric features from video and identifying subjects from those features. To conduct its studies, the university created databases of synchronized multi-camera video sequences of body motion, human faces under a wide range of imaging conditions, AU coded expression videos, and hyperspectal and polarimetric images of faces.[31] The video sequences of body motion data consisted of six separate viewpoints of 25 subjects walking on a treadmill. Four separate 11-second gaits were tested for each: slow walk, fast walk, inclined, and carrying a ball.[30]

The University of Maryland's Institute for Advanced Computer Studies' research focused on recognizing people at a distance by gait and face. Also to be used were infrared and five-degree-of-freedom cameras.[32] Tests included filming 38 male and 6 female subjects of different ethnicities and physical features walking along a T-shaped path from various angles.[33]

The University of Southampton's Department of Electronics and Computer Science was developing an "automatic gait recognition" system and was in charge of compiling a database to test it.[34] The University of Texas at Dallas was compiling a database to test facial systems. The data included a set of nine static pictures taken from different viewpoints, a video of each subject looking around a room, a video of the subject speaking, and one or more videos of the subject showing facial expressions.[35] Colorado State University developed multiple systems for identification via facial recognition.[36] Columbia University participated in implementing HumanID in poor weather.[31]

Bio-surveillance

[edit]
Graphic describing the goals of the bio-surveillance project

The bio-surveillance project was designed to predict and respond to bioterrorism by monitoring non-traditional data sources such as animal sentinels, behavioral indicators, and pre-diagnostic medical data. It would leverage existing disease models, identify abnormal health early indicators, and mine existing databases to determine the most valuable early indicators for abnormal health conditions.[37]

Scope of surveillance

[edit]

As a "virtual, centralized, grand database",[38] the scope of surveillance included credit card purchases, magazine subscriptions, web browsing histories, phone records, academic grades, bank deposits, gambling histories, passport applications, airline and railway tickets, driver's licenses, gun licenses, toll records, judicial records, and divorce records.[8][12]

Health and biological information TIA collected included drug prescriptions,[8] medical records,[39] fingerprints, gait, face and iris data,[12] and DNA.[40]

Privacy

[edit]

TIA's Genisys component, in addition to integrating and organizing separate databases, was to run an internal "privacy protection program". This was intended to restrict analysts' access to irrelevant information on private U.S. citizens, enforce privacy laws and policies, and report misuses of data.[41] There were also plans for TIA to have an application that could "anonymize" data, so that information could be linked to an individual only by court order (especially for medical records gathered by the bio-surveillance project).[37] A set of audit logs were to be kept, which would track whether innocent Americans' communications were getting caught up in relevant data.[10]

History

[edit]
Adm. John Poindexter, the director of the Information Awareness Office and chief supporter of TIA

The term total information awareness was first coined at the 1999 annual DARPAtech conference in a presentation by the deputy director of the Office of Information Systems Management, Brian Sharkey. Sharkey applied the phrase to a conceptual method by which the government could sift through massive amounts of data becoming available via digitization and draw important conclusions.[22]

Early developments

[edit]

TIA was proposed as a program shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001, by Rear Admiral John Poindexter.[42] A former national security adviser to President Ronald Reagan and a key player in the Iran–Contra affair, he was working with Syntek Technologies, a company often contracted out by the government for work on defense projects. TIA was officially commissioned during the 2002 fiscal year.[17] In January 2002 Poindexter was appointed Director of the newly created Information Awareness Office division of DARPA, which managed TIA's development.[43] The office temporarily operated out of the fourth floor of DARPA's headquarters, while Poindexter looked for a place to permanently house TIA's researchers.[15] Soon Project Genoa was completed and its research moved on to Genoa II.[44][45]

Late that year, the Information Awareness Office awarded the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) a $19 million contract to develop the "Information Awareness Prototype System", the core architecture to integrate all of TIA's information extraction, analysis, and dissemination tools. This was done through its consulting arm, Hicks & Associates, which employed many former Defense Department and military officials.[16]

TIA's earliest version employed software called "Groove", which had been developed in 2000 by Ray Ozzie. Groove made it possible for analysts from many different agencies to share intelligence data instantly, and linked specialized programs that were designed to look for patterns of suspicious behavior.[46]

Congressional restrictions and termination

[edit]

On 24 January 2003, the United States Senate voted to limit TIA by restricting its ability to gather information from emails and the commercial databases of health, financial and travel companies.[47] According to the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-7, Division M, § 111(b) passed in February, the Defense Department was given 90 days to compile a report laying out a schedule of TIA's development and the intended use of allotted funds or face a cutoff of support.[48]

The report arrived on May 20. It disclosed that the program's computer tools were still in their preliminary testing phase. Concerning the pattern recognition of transaction information, only synthetic data created by researchers was being processed. The report also conceded that a full prototype of TIA would not be ready until the 2007 fiscal year.[13] Also in May, Total Information Awareness was renamed Terrorism Information Awareness in an attempt to stem the flow of criticism on its information-gathering practices on average citizens.[49]

At some point in early 2003, the National Security Agency began installing access nodes on TIA's classified network.[5] The NSA then started running stacks of emails and intercepted communications through TIA's various programs.[14]

Following a scandal in the Department of Defense involving a proposal to reward investors who predicted terrorist attacks, Poindexter resigned from office on 29 August.[14]

On September 30, 2003, Congress officially cut off TIA's funding and the Information Awareness Office (with the Senate voting unanimously against it)[50] because of its unpopular perception by the general public and the media.[9][51] Senators Ron Wyden and Byron Dorgan led the effort.[52]

After 2003

[edit]

Reports began to emerge in February 2006 that TIA's components had been transferred to the authority of the NSA. In the Department of Defense appropriations bill for the 2004 fiscal year, a classified annex provided the funding. It was stipulated that the technologies were limited for military or foreign intelligence purposes against non-U.S. citizens.[53] Most of the original project goals and research findings were preserved, but the privacy protection mechanics were abandoned.[5][10]

Topsail

[edit]

Genoa II, which focused on collaboration between machines and humans, was renamed "Topsail" and handed over to the NSA's Advanced Research and Development Activity, or ARDA (ARDA was later moved to the Director of National Intelligence's control as the Disruptive Technologies Office). Tools from the program were used in the war in Afghanistan and other parts of the War on Terror.[16] In October 2005, the SAIC signed a $3.7 million contract for work on Topsail.[22] In early 2006 a spokesman for the Air Force Research Laboratory said that Topsail was "in the process of being canceled due to lack of funds". When asked about Topsail in a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that February, both National Intelligence Director John Negroponte and FBI Director Robert Mueller said they did not know the program's status. Negroponte's deputy, former NSA director, Michael V. Hayden, said, "I'd like to answer in closed session."[16]

Basketball

[edit]

The Information Awareness Prototype System was reclassified as "Basketball" and work on it continued by SAIC, supervised by ARDA. As late as September 2004, Basketball was fully funded by the government and being tested in a research center jointly run by ARDA and SAIC.[16]

Criticism

[edit]

Critics allege that the program could be abused by government authorities as part of their practice of mass surveillance in the United States. In an op-ed for The New York Times, William Safire called it "the supersnoop's dream: a Total Information Awareness about every U.S. citizen".[8]

Hans Mark, a former director of defense research and engineering at the University of Texas, called it a "dishonest misuse of DARPA".[1]

The American Civil Liberties Union launched a campaign to terminate TIA's implementation, claiming that it would "kill privacy in America" because "every aspect of our lives would be catalogued".[54] The San Francisco Chronicle criticized the program for "Fighting terror by terrifying U.S. citizens".[55]

Still, in 2013 former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lied about a massive data collection on US citizens and others.[56] Edward Snowden said that because of Clapper's lie he lost hope to change things formally.[56]

[edit]

In the 2008 British television series The Last Enemy, TIA is portrayed as a UK-based surveillance database that can be used to track and monitor anybody by putting all available government information in one place.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Total Information Awareness

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Total Information Awareness (TIA) was a research and development program established by the United States Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, intended to integrate advanced information technologies for detecting, classifying, and preempting foreign terrorist threats through comprehensive data analysis.
Directed by Rear Admiral John Poindexter as part of the DARPA Information Awareness Office, TIA aimed to overcome inter-agency information silos by developing tools for pattern recognition in transactional data—such as financial records, travel patterns, and communications—alongside biometric identification, natural language processing, and collaborative reasoning systems like Genisys, EELD, and Genoa II.
Proponents highlighted embedded privacy protections, including anonymization methods, audit trails, and synthetic datasets for testing, to counterbalance security gains against civil liberties risks; however, the program's scale and potential for behavioral surveillance provoked substantial opposition, prompting Congress to enact funding restrictions in the Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations via Public Law 108-7, which barred deployment without certified safeguards and congressional oversight.
These measures effectively dismantled TIA's overt structure, marking a pivotal case in the tension between national security imperatives and individual privacy rights, though core concepts influenced subsequent data analytics advancements in intelligence operations.

Objectives and Strategic Rationale

Post-9/11 Security Imperative

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, perpetrated by 19 hijackers who seized four commercial airliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center towers, , and a field in , killed 2,977 victims and exposed systemic failures in U.S. coordination and predictive capabilities. These failures manifested in unconnected "dots" of —such as prior warnings about and of suspects—that failed to coalesce into actionable prevention. The attacks shifted priorities toward preempting asymmetric threats from non-state actors, demanding tools to sift vast data volumes for subtle indicators of impending harm rather than relying on post-incident investigations. In immediate aftermath, the U.S. government enacted measures like the on October 26, 2001, to expand powers, but recognized the need for to bridge gaps. responded by creating the (IAO) in January 2002, tasked with pioneering integrated data analysis to counter terrorism proactively. Led by Rear Admiral , a former Advisor, the IAO framed Total Information Awareness (TIA) as essential for detecting patterns in transactional data—encompassing finances, travel, and communications—from both public and private sources. Poindexter emphasized that conventional intelligence struggled against "thousands of people whose identities and whereabouts we do not always know," proposing TIA to mine disparate datasets for anomalies mirroring past attacks, thereby enabling real-time threat forecasting and disruption. This imperative reflected a causal understanding that fragmented information silos had enabled the 9/11 plot, necessitating a unified architecture to generate predictive insights amid exponential data growth. While aimed at preserving civil liberties through targeted oversight, the program's scale underscored the tension between security exigencies and privacy safeguards in an era of evolving threats.

Core Mission and Predictive Goals

The core mission of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, established by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) following the September 11, 2001, attacks, centered on developing technologies to preempt asymmetric terrorist threats through comprehensive data integration and analysis. TIA sought to connect elements of the global information grid—including private-sector databases on financial records, telephone calls, medical histories, and travel data, alongside publicly available sources like news reports—into a unified system for automated threat detection. This approach aimed to identify terrorists, their networks, and planned acts by recognizing patterns that might evade traditional intelligence methods. Predictive goals emphasized forecasting potential attacks via advanced and tools, enabling probabilistic modeling of behaviors and events. The program envisioned a "closed-loop" that would iteratively refine predictions by incorporating outcomes from detected threats, thereby enhancing future accuracy in distinguishing benign activities from malicious intent. DARPA's (IAO), led by Vice Admiral , described this as capturing the "information signatures" of individuals and organizations to anticipate low-intensity conflicts characteristic of . To address privacy risks, TIA incorporated research into -protecting methods, such as and controlled dissemination, though these were intended to operate within a framework prioritizing imperatives over unrestricted access. The overarching objective was to shift from reactive to proactive defense, leveraging computational power to process petabytes of data for early warning signals amid the post-9/11 imperative to counter elusive adversaries.

Technical Components and Architecture

Data Integration and Mining Systems

The data integration and mining systems under Total Information Awareness (TIA) were designed to aggregate heterogeneous data from disparate sources, such as financial transactions, travel records, and communications, into a unified framework for pattern detection and threat identification. These systems aimed to treat distributed legacy databases as a centralized, semantically rich repository, enabling analysts to query ultra-large-scale datasets exceeding billions of records while incorporating privacy safeguards like controlled access and data perturbation. In fiscal year 2003, DARPA allocated $10 million specifically for integrating these research efforts into a prototype TIA system. A core component was Genisys, which focused on developing technologies to integrate and query massive for counter-terrorism applications, including synthetic transaction for testing algorithms against simulated threats. Genisys emphasized metadata-driven federation of structured and , allowing seamless access across without full centralization, and received $11 million in FY2003 funding as a new initiative. Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery (EELD) complemented integration by mining unstructured text for relational evidence, such as entity links and event patterns indicative of terrorism, going beyond keyword searches to infer connections dynamically. Initiated in preliminary form in 1999 and fully under TIA by 2001, EELD was budgeted at $14 million for FY2003 to enhance link analysis from vast, noisy datasets. Scalable Social Network Analysis (SSNA) provided mining capabilities for modeling dynamic networks of interactions, including social ties, financial flows, and communications, to identify anomalous subgroups resembling terrorist cells based on behavioral patterns rather than content alone. SSNA algorithms scaled to handle large populations by focusing on aggregate structures and change detection, supporting proactive surveillance without exhaustive monitoring. These systems collectively enabled causal inference from data correlations, prioritizing empirical anomaly detection over probabilistic assumptions.

Network Analysis and Pattern Recognition

The Network Analysis and Pattern Recognition components of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program focused on developing algorithms and tools to identify connections and anomalies in vast datasets, enabling the detection of terrorist networks and activities through graph-based modeling and link discovery. These technologies emphasized scalable processing of relational data, such as social, financial, and communication links, to differentiate threat patterns from benign interactions. Core to this effort was the integration of social network analysis with evidence extraction methods, tested using historical data like the 9/11 hijacker networks to validate feasibility. Scalable Social Network Analysis (SSNA) represented a primary initiative, employing graph theory to model multiple interaction types across individuals, groups, and organizations on large-scale datasets. SSNA aimed to distinguish terrorist cells from normal social structures and detect indicators of attack planning, with algorithms designed for real-time evolution tracking of network dynamics. Feasibility demonstrations applied SSNA to pre-9/11 Al-Qaeda data, achieving initial success in identifying relational patterns; the program allocated $3.348 million in FY2004 funding, targeting completion by FY2007 and potential transition to agencies including the Defense Intelligence Agency and Central Intelligence Agency. Complementing SSNA, the Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery (EELD) project extracted relationships from unstructured text sources, such as intelligence reports, to uncover sparse connections indicative of threats. EELD utilized tools like Subdue for graph-based clustering and pattern subsumption, alongside link analysis software including Watson Pro and Analyst Notebook for visualizing entity networks as nodes and edges. Initiated in FY2001, EELD demonstrated prototype capabilities by FY2002, with $10.265 million budgeted for FY2004 and completion slated for FY2005; it incorporated machine learning to recognize rare terrorist signatures amid data noise. Pattern recognition in these systems relied on statistical models, including hidden Markov models and probabilistic vector state representations, to associate event sequences with known threat behaviors. Experiments, such as those in the Mistral and Sirocco prototypes conducted in 2002, integrated these tools within a service-oriented architecture to support analyst-driven queries and automated alerts. To mitigate privacy risks, development emphasized synthetic datasets and oversight protocols compliant with Executive Order 12333, restricting use of identifiable U.S. person data without legal authorization.

Simulation and Forecasting Tools

The simulation and forecasting tools within the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program were designed to enable predictive modeling of terrorist threats by generating scenarios, analyzing patterns in simulated data, and aggregating collective intelligence for event anticipation. These tools aimed to integrate vast datasets into dynamic models that could simulate asymmetric environments, forecast cell activations, and identify attack triggers faster than real-time, supporting preemptive decision-making. Development relied on synthetic datasets representing billions of transactions among millions of simulated entities to test and refine predictive algorithms without compromising real privacy initially. Futures Markets Applied to Prediction (FutureMAP) harnessed market-based mechanisms, such as simulated trading platforms, to aggregate dispersed knowledge from participants for forecasting events like terrorist incidents, thereby avoiding strategic surprises through crowd-sourced probability estimates. The program sought to demonstrate how economic incentives could elicit accurate predictions superior to traditional intelligence methods, with applications extending to national security planning. FutureMAP was allocated resources as part of TIA's broader predictive architecture, emphasizing verifiable event outcomes for market calibration. Scalable Social Network Analysis (SSNA) extended graph-based modeling to forecast the activation of terrorist cells by mapping multifaceted connections, including social, financial, and communication links, across large-scale populations. Algorithms differentiated potential threats from benign networks by simulating relational dynamics and detecting anomalies indicative of coordination, with a target completion in fiscal year 2007 and a fiscal year 2004 budget of $3.348 million. This tool complemented data mining by providing probabilistic forecasts of group behaviors under varying stimuli. Wargaming the Asymmetric Environment (WAE) developed automated predictive models tailored to specific terrorist groups, simulating behavioral responses to triggers and forecasting attack modalities through iterative scenario generation. These models incorporated historical and hypothetical data to anticipate non-state actor strategies in irregular warfare contexts. Similarly, Rapid Analytical Wargaming (RAW) enabled faster-than-real-time simulations integrating country-level and terrorist predictive models for strategic foresight, facilitating rapid iteration of intervention options. Genoa II incorporated predictive modeling within collaborative environments to generate plausible future threat scenarios, using simulation-driven reasoning to explore branching outcomes and support analyst-driven forecasting. These tools collectively aimed to bridge data integration with causal inference, though empirical validation remained at the prototype stage by program termination in 2003, limited by computational constraints and the nascent state of scalable simulations.

Identification and Biosurveillance Technologies

The Identification and Biosurveillance Technologies component of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) under the Information Awareness Office, focused on advancing non-cooperative biometric systems and health data analytics to enhance counterterrorism capabilities. These efforts aimed to enable remote identification of individuals and early detection of biological threats without relying on traditional intelligence methods. Central to the identification efforts was the Human Identification at a Distance (HumanID) project, led by researcher Jonathon Phillips, which sought to develop multi-modal biometric technologies for positive identification of humans using sensors that capture traits such as gait, facial features, and other physiological markers. This system was designed to operate at ranges up to 150 meters, under all weather conditions and day or night, fusing data from video and other non-imaging biometrics like ECG or respiration to distinguish individuals without their cooperation or awareness. DARPA allocated $11.8 million in FY2001, $15.9 million in FY2002, and $14.5 million in FY2003 for HumanID development under program element 602301E, project ST-28, emphasizing automated detection, recognition, and tracking of potential threats in public spaces. Biosurveillance technologies under TIA, specifically the Bio-Surveillance project also led by Ted Senator, targeted early warning of biological agent releases or bioterrorism incidents by integrating and analyzing non-traditional health-related data sources, such as over-the-counter medication sales, hospital admissions, and environmental indicators. The initiative aimed to detect anomalies signaling bio-events before clinical confirmation, with a prototype planned for citywide implementation, exemplified by a test in Norfolk, Virginia. Funding for Bio-Surveillance (later renamed Bio-ALIRT in FY2004) included $8.0 million in FY2002 and $13.5 million in FY2003 under the same program element, focusing on modular architectures compatible with broader TIA data integration goals. These technologies were prototyped as part of TIA's spiral development approach, with HumanID and Bio-Surveillance intended to feed into larger predictive analytics systems for correlating individual identities with potential health or behavioral threats. DARPA emphasized research prototypes over operational deployment, though privacy concerns later prompted congressional scrutiny of their scalability and data handling.

Historical Development

Inception under DARPA's IAO (2001-2002)

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) accelerated research into information technologies for countering asymmetric threats, building on efforts dating back to 1996. This led to the creation of the Information Awareness Office (IAO) within DARPA in mid-January 2002, specifically to develop and integrate tools for terrorism prevention through data analysis and predictive modeling. The IAO's flagship initiative, Total Information Awareness (TIA), was conceived as a research program to enable the detection of terrorist acts in planning stages by fusing disparate data sources into actionable intelligence. Vice Admiral John M. Poindexter, a retired U.S. Navy officer and former National Security Advisor under President Reagan, was appointed director of the IAO to oversee this effort. Poindexter emphasized the need for systems that could process vast transaction spaces, including financial, communication, and travel data, to identify patterns indicative of threats without prior knowledge of targets. Initial TIA components under the IAO included prototypes for data mining, such as Genoa for collaborative intelligence analysis and tools for scalable social network analysis, with funding allocated starting in fiscal year 2002 for 16 related R&D projects totaling approximately $123 million through 2003. These early developments focused on proof-of-concept demonstrations, aiming to transition technologies to operational use while incorporating privacy safeguards like user controls and audit logs, though empirical validation of efficacy remained preliminary. By August 2002, Poindexter publicly articulated the program's vision at the DARPATech conference, framing it as essential for pre-empting attacks amid intelligence gaps exposed by 9/11.

Expansion and Internal Oversight (2002-2003)

Following its establishment in January 2002 under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's (DARPA) Information Awareness Office (IAO), led by Vice Admiral John Poindexter, the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program underwent significant expansion through enhanced funding and technological integration efforts. In fiscal year (FY) 2002, DARPA allocated $99.5 million to IAO-managed initiatives, including $83.8 million for technologies linked to TIA's data mining and pattern recognition goals. This funding supported the initiation of sub-programs such as Genisys for scalable data querying, Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery (EELD) for relationship mining, and Human Identification at a Distance (HumanID) for biometric surveillance, aiming to build toward a functional prototype system within three to five years. By late 2002, expansion accelerated with the creation of a virtual private network incorporating nine intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency (NSA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), to facilitate collaborative testing and real-world problem-solving using legally available data. For FY 2003, DARPA increased IAO funding to $137.5 million, plus $10 million specifically for integrating disparate research and development efforts into an initial TIA prototype, with an additional $110.6 million for supporting technologies. These resources enabled spiral development cycles, focusing on predictive analytics and decision-support tools, while plans emerged to transition mature components to civilian law enforcement agencies post-prototype validation. Poindexter outlined this progress at the DARPATech 2002 conference on August 2, emphasizing TIA's role in countering asymmetric threats through comprehensive information fusion. Internal oversight mechanisms were formalized in early 2003 amid growing scrutiny over privacy implications. On February 7, 2003, the Department of Defense (DoD) established a high-level internal oversight board comprising senior officials to establish policies, monitor development, ensure compliance with existing privacy laws, and recommend modifications as needed. Complementing this, an external advisory board of privacy and legal experts was convened to provide independent guidance on ethical and constitutional issues. The Secretary of Defense's internal board, also activated in February 2003, enforced directives such as annual intelligence oversight training for all TIA personnel and prohibitions on collecting data about U.S. persons, relying instead on synthetic or anonymized datasets for experiments. Privacy-specific R&D, including the Genisys Privacy Protection initiative funded at $5.9 million in FY 2004, developed algorithms for data anonymization, audit trails, and access controls to mitigate risks of unauthorized surveillance. These measures adhered to Executive Order 12333 and DoD regulations like 5240.1-R, with INSCOM's Information Operations Center filtering outputs to comply with minimization requirements for U.S. person data. A May 20, 2003, report to Congress detailed these safeguards, affirming that TIA experiments would use only publicly or legally accessible information while undergoing iterative legal reviews.

Congressional Intervention and Program Shutdown (2003)

Congressional opposition to the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program intensified in early 2003, driven primarily by concerns over potential privacy invasions and the aggregation of vast personal data sets for predictive analysis. Lawmakers, including Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND), criticized the program's scope, arguing it risked creating a domestic surveillance apparatus despite DARPA's assurances that TIA was limited to research and foreign intelligence applications. On February 12, 2003, House and Senate negotiators agreed to restrict TIA from monitoring U.S. citizens' Internet e-mail and commercial databases without congressional oversight, embedding these limits in defense funding measures. In response to mounting scrutiny, the Department of Defense submitted a detailed report to Congress on May 20, 2003, outlining TIA's research focus on counterterrorism technologies, including data mining tools and privacy safeguards like anonymization techniques, while emphasizing its non-operational status and restrictions to overseas threats. However, critics, including civil liberties groups, dismissed these protections as insufficient against mission creep, citing the program's leadership under Admiral John Poindexter, whose Iran-Contra involvement fueled distrust. Congressional hearings highlighted fears of erroneous profiling and Fourth Amendment violations, with proposals like Representative Jerrold Nadler's (D-NY) moratorium bill seeking to halt implementation pending further review. Poindexter's tenure ended amid separate controversy over the Information Awareness Office's proposed Policy Analysis Market, a prediction market for terrorist events, leading to his resignation on July 31, 2003; this event amplified calls to terminate TIA, though the program itself persisted briefly under the renamed Terrorism Information Awareness. Defenders, such as analysts at the Heritage Foundation, argued that premature defunding would undermine post-9/11 predictive capabilities without empirical evidence of abuse, given TIA's developmental stage and built-in oversight. The decisive intervention came via the conference report on H.R. 2658, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2004, approved by the House on September 24, 2003 (vote: 407-15) and the Senate on September 25, which prohibited any funding for TIA's deployment, use against U.S. persons, or continuation beyond research transfer to classified channels. This effectively shut down the program, with Section 8131 mandating detailed reports on transferred components and barring domestic applications, reflecting bipartisan consensus on balancing security innovations against civil liberties risks despite the absence of operational TIA data demonstrating overreach. The act was incorporated into the final appropriations law signed October 1, 2003, marking TIA's formal termination.

Controversies and Policy Debates

Privacy and Surveillance Overreach Claims

Critics of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program, including civil liberties advocates and congressional lawmakers, argued that its architecture for aggregating and analyzing massive datasets from government and commercial sources would enable unprecedented government intrusion into private lives, potentially compiling detailed profiles on U.S. citizens without individualized suspicion. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asserted that TIA would catalog every aspect of individuals' activities—encompassing financial transactions, travel patterns, medical records, and communications—rendering personal data readily accessible to federal officials and eroding Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. Similarly, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) highlighted the program's reliance on pattern recognition across disparate databases as a mechanism for dragnet surveillance, warning that it bypassed traditional warrants and risked false positives ensnaring innocent persons in investigative nets. These organizations contended that proposed privacy mechanisms, such as data anonymization and agency self-certification of compliance, were illusory safeguards lacking independent verification or judicial oversight, allowing for unchecked expansion into domestic monitoring beyond counterterrorism aims. The Cato Institute echoed these fears, likening TIA to historical abuses of intelligence gathering and cautioning against its potential for political misuse, given precedents like the Iran-Contra affair involving program director John Poindexter. Lawmakers, including Representative Jerrold Nadler, decried the initiative as a direct assault on constitutional privacy rights, emphasizing its broad scope to vacuum up transactional metadata on millions without probable cause. Public and legislative backlash intensified following media disclosures of TIA's scope in late 2002, framing it as a step toward a surveillance apparatus capable of preemptively flagging behaviors as suspicious through algorithmic inference rather than evidence-based inquiry. Although proponents claimed restrictions to foreign intelligence targets, skeptics pointed to the program's design for "total" data integration as inherently prone to mission creep, including U.S. persons' information via incidental collection. This outcry contributed to Congress's decision to withhold funding in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, signed into law on December 16, 2003, effectively terminating the initiative amid unresolved concerns over civil liberties erosion.

Security Necessity and Empirical Defenses

The security necessity of the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program arose directly from the intelligence shortcomings revealed by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which demonstrated the U.S. government's inability to integrate disparate data sources and detect emerging threats amid organizational silos. The 9/11 Commission Report documented how the CIA possessed information on hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi attending an al-Qaeda summit in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, yet failed to share their U.S. visa and entry details with the FBI until August 2001, preventing timely surveillance. Similarly, the FBI's Phoenix Memo in July 2001 warned of al-Qaeda operatives enrolling in U.S. flight schools, but this was not connected to the contemporaneous arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui for suspicious flight training, due to inadequate cross-agency data fusion. Proponents, including Information Awareness Office director Rear Admiral John Poindexter, defended TIA as essential for countering asymmetric terrorism, where adversaries exploit open societies by leaving faint digital trails in transactional, communication, and behavioral data. Poindexter's vision positioned TIA's data mining and pattern recognition tools as a means to preempt attacks by identifying anomalies invisible to human analysts overwhelmed by data volume, arguing that reactive intelligence alone could not suffice against networked non-state actors. This rationale aligned with first-hand assessments of pre-9/11 lapses, such as the unlinked intelligence on the USS Cole bombing in October 2000, which might have signaled escalating al-Qaeda operations if aggregated earlier. Empirical defenses for TIA emphasized the causal link between data fragmentation and operational failures, evidenced by over a dozen documented "missed opportunities" chronicled in the 9/11 Commission findings, including unshared threat reports from 1998 embassy bombings and aborted strikes on Osama bin Laden due to incomplete intelligence synthesis. These cases underscored the need for automated integration to handle the exponential growth in global data post-9/11, with proponents citing the program's research prototypes—like scalable mining algorithms—as prototypes for scalable threat forecasting, potentially averting low-probability, high-impact events through probabilistic modeling rather than hindsight analysis. While TIA remained developmental, its conceptual framework drew validation from the persistent challenge of "connecting the dots" in counterterrorism, where manual processes had empirically failed to disrupt the 9/11 plot despite possessing key fragments of relevant information across agencies.

Oversight Mechanisms and Feasibility Assessments

In response to privacy and civil liberties concerns raised by Congress, the Department of Defense established an internal oversight board in February 2003, comprising senior officials from the DoD and Intelligence Community to monitor the Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA) program's development and ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. An external advisory board, functioning as a Federal Advisory Committee, was also created to include independent experts on privacy and legal matters, with its inaugural meeting scheduled for late May 2003. These mechanisms were supplemented by mandatory annual intelligence oversight training for all TIA personnel under Program Directive #1, adherence to Executive Order 12333 and DoD Regulation 5240.1-R, and requirements for pre-deployment legal reviews documented through memoranda of agreement. Congressional oversight intensified through the Wyden amendment in P.L. 108-7 (the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution), which mandated a joint report from the Secretary of Defense, Director of Central Intelligence, and Attorney General by May 20, 2003, detailing TIA's structure, privacy safeguards, and potential domestic applications, with funding termination as the consequence for noncompliance. The resulting report emphasized operational safeguards such as automated audit trails, selective data revelation only upon authorization, and prohibitions on collecting data about U.S. persons beyond what was legally permissible under existing authorities. Deployment of any TIA components required prior congressional notification and authorization, except for uses limited to overseas military operations or foreign intelligence collection. Feasibility assessments highlighted significant technical challenges in achieving reliable predictive capabilities. DARPA's evaluations focused on metrics for technical efficacy, operational utility, cognitive workload, and network interactions, with initial experiments using synthetic data commencing in December 2002 to simulate detection of terrorist activities among 10 million imaginary entities. Key hurdles included minimizing false positives in vast, heterogeneous datasets—such as generating potentially 300,000 erroneous leads for every 1,500 accurate terrorist identifications in a one-million-transaction database (a 200:1 ratio)—which could overwhelm investigative resources. Tools like Evidence Extraction and Link Discovery (EELD) aimed to address rare event detection in noisy intelligence data, distinct from commercial patterns, while Genisys sought scalable integration without centralized storage, but full prototype completion was projected for fiscal years 2005–2007, remaining in R&D phase without operational deployment. These assessments underscored causal limitations in data mining for preemptive threat identification, where precision demands and data volume strained computational and human analytic capacities.

Termination, Legacy, and Successors

Immediate Aftermath and Rebranding Efforts

![John Poindexter]float-right Following intensified congressional scrutiny and public opposition, the Total Information Awareness (TIA) program underwent a rebranding to Terrorism Information Awareness in early 2003, aiming to refocus its mandate explicitly on counterterrorism while addressing privacy concerns through promised safeguards. This change occurred amid requirements for DARPA to submit reports to Congress detailing the program's structure, technologies, and privacy protections, as stipulated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. The program's director, Admiral , resigned on August 29, 2003, precipitated by backlash against the Policy Analysis Market (PAM), a TIA subcomponent proposing a futures trading platform for predicting terrorist events, which was terminated by in July 2003. Poindexter's departure marked a pivotal shift, but did not halt ongoing efforts to integrate TIA's research outcomes. In December 2003, Congress effectively terminated public funding for the rebranded program via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, prohibiting expenditures without further oversight and certification of privacy compliance, leading to the closure of the by early 2004. Despite this, select TIA-developed technologies and prototypes, including and tools from contractors like Global Infotek and Bellatrix Systems, were transferred to classified programs within the (NSA) and other intelligence entities, evading subsequent public accountability. These rebranding and relocation maneuvers preserved core capabilities under opaque budgeting, as confirmed by former officials and subsequent reporting.

Influence on NSA and Broader Intelligence Practices

Following the congressional defunding of Total Information Awareness in late 2003, multiple program components were transferred to classified initiatives within the National Security Agency (NSA), allowing research and technologies to persist beyond public oversight. TIA's core projects, including advanced data-mining and pattern-recognition tools, were relocated to the NSA's Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA), a unit focused on signals intelligence enhancements. This shift enabled the integration of TIA-developed algorithms for processing vast datasets, such as transaction records and communications metadata, into operational surveillance frameworks. The adoption of TIA technologies influenced NSA practices by prioritizing and multi-source to detect potential threats preemptively. By 2006, reports indicated that these tools were actively employed in NSA efforts, including warrantless programs authorized under executive orders post-9/11. For instance, TIA's emphasis on scalable query systems and paralleled capabilities later revealed in NSA's bulk telephony metadata collection, which amassed records from millions of Americans to identify terrorism-related patterns. , TIA's architect, had advocated for such systems in discussions with NSA Director Michael Hayden as early as March 2002, underscoring conceptual continuity despite the program's formal termination. NSA programs revealed by Edward Snowden, such as XKeyscore and Tailored Access Operations (TAO), are not direct remnants or official successors to TIA, despite broader conceptual influences on NSA data analytics practices. In broader intelligence practices, TIA's legacy fostered a doctrinal shift toward comprehensive information dominance, impacting agencies beyond the NSA through shared research outcomes. Elements of TIA's bioinformatics and human identification technologies informed collaborative efforts in the intelligence community, such as enhanced biosurveillance and entity resolution across federal databases. This evolution contributed to post-2003 expansions in data aggregation under the USA PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act of 2008, embedding TIA-inspired methodologies into routine counterterrorism operations while raising ongoing debates about efficacy and civil liberties. Empirical assessments of these practices, including NSA's own internal reviews, have shown mixed results in threat prevention, with bulk collection yielding limited actionable intelligence relative to privacy costs.

Long-Term Technological and Policy Impacts

Following the 2003 congressional defunding of Total Information Awareness (TIA), its core research components were rebranded and migrated to the National Security Agency (NSA) through the Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA), preserving development under classified annexes in defense appropriations acts. The Information Awareness Prototype System, focused on integrated data architectures, was renamed "Basketball" and managed by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), while the Genoa II collaboration tool became "Topsail." These transfers retained original contractors, funding streams, and technical specifications, enabling continued advancement in predictive analytics and pattern recognition technologies originally envisioned for preempting asymmetric threats. Technologically, TIA's emphasis on fusing disparate data sources via , , and graph-based laid groundwork for NSA's scaled-up signal intelligence operations, including metadata processing from providers handling trillions of records. By , a Government Accountability Office survey identified 199 federal data-mining efforts, with over 120 targeting patterns in personal information, reflecting proliferation of TIA-derived methods across intelligence and . These capabilities contributed to post-9/11 expansions in automated tools, though empirical assessments have questioned their precision in reducing false positives amid vast datasets. In policy terms, TIA's public backlash catalyzed requirements for privacy impact assessments and congressional reporting in successor programs, as embedded in the 2003 appropriations restrictions limiting use to foreign intelligence targets. This scrutiny influenced subsequent frameworks, such as enhanced Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) oversight provisions, amid debates over balancing empirical security gains—evidenced by limited but cited disruptions of plots—against risks of overreach. Long-term, the program's legacy amplified institutional wariness of overt domestic applications, yet facilitated normalized bulk data retention policies, with 2015 reforms under the USA Freedom Act ending certain NSA telephony metadata programs while authorizing query-based access, underscoring persistent causal trade-offs between preventive efficacy and individual protections.

References

  1. https://irp.fas.org/agency/dod/poindexter.html
  2. https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=3894
  3. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12452/chapter/16
  4. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31730.html
  5. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-911REPORT/pdf/GPO-911REPORT.pdf
  6. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-policy/usacm/privacy-and-security/privacy-overview/crista_report.pdf
  7. https://www.globalsecurity.org/security/systems/tia.htm
  8. https://hanson.gmu.edu/PAM/govt/DARPA-report-to-congress-5-20-03.pdf
  9. http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/fcdb/aut07/2006/ethics_readings/poindexter-TIA-speech.html
  10. https://archive.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/
  11. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31786.html
  12. https://archive.epic.org/privacy/profiling/tia/may03_report.pdf
  13. https://epic.org/wp-content/uploads/privacy/profiling/tia/tiasystemdescription.pdf
  14. https://isij.eu/system/files/download-count/2023-01/10.09_Total_Information.pdf
  15. https://www.nextgov.com/people/2002/10/darpa-developing-info-awareness/205361/
  16. https://www.aclu.org/documents/qa-pentagons-total-information-awareness-program
  17. https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-dorgan-continue-call-for-closure-of-terrorism-information-awareness-program
  18. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/12/us/threats-responses-electronic-surveillance-congress-agrees-bar-pentagon-terror.html
  19. https://nadler.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=392475
  20. https://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/poindexter.resigns/
  21. https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/congress-should-not-prematurely-short-circuit-the-total-information
  22. https://sgp.fas.org/congress/2003/tia.html
  23. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/congress-dismantles-total-information-awareness-spy-program-aclu-applauds-victory
  24. https://www.globalissues.org/article/445/congress-defunds-controversial-total-information-program
  25. https://www.technologyreview.com/2006/04/26/229286/the-total-information-awareness-project-lives-on/
  26. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2003/05/eff-review-may-20-report-total-informatin-awareness
  27. https://www.cato.org/commentary/beware-total-information-awareness
  28. https://rollcall.com/2003/02/21/surveillance-program-tramples-rights/
  29. https://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
  30. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/poindexter-quits-over-betting-flap/
  31. https://www.eff.org/node/72519
  32. https://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/27/total_information_awareness_lives_on_inside
  33. https://privacysos.org/tia/
  34. https://www.aclu.org/documents/data-mining
  35. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/whos-watching-the-nsa-watchers.html
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.