Remnder: MIT starts own Total Information Awareness for voters

For the uninitiated: a primer.

The system being developed by MIT is based on the TIA system devised by disgraced Admiral Poindexter that was to be used on ordinary American citizens. Until now, we have only had the nebulous associations assembled at www.opensecrets.org to provide information (good information) detailing the partnership of certain corporations and their inevitable ties to government.

What MIT seeks to achieve is a comprehensive repository of information that will quickly analyze every money trail, every partnership and loose affiliation for every politician at nearly each level of elected government. Political appointees are not exempted.

From MIT's own website:

The Open Government Information Awareness suite of software tools acts as a framework for US citizens to construct and analyze a comprehensive database on our government. Modeled on recent government programs designed to consolidate information on individuals into massive databases, our system does the opposite, allowing you to scrutinize those in government. Citizens are able to explore data, track events, find patterns, and build risk profiles, all in an effort to encourage and motivate action. We like to think of it as a Citizen’s Intelligence Agency, giving people similar tools and technologies to those held by their government.

Central to GIA is its extensible model of data: Everything in its system is either an entity or a link -- a thing or a relationship. This allows the system to grow in any direction, and accommodate as-yet unimagined institutions, organizations, or threats.
More information is available here.*

additional information located on this page

I had not seen a thread on this issue in a while. As we move closer to the primaries, this MIT initiative could serve everyone well.

I know I've been working hard, but I've not heard about this.

Sweet justice...I'm so happy.

I think, however, the reason our country is failing and destroying itself is each person's definition of government. We're missing a word.

Government to me means that I elected someone to represent me.
Government means by the people, for the people, of the people.
Notice that word OF? the people?
I don't think of the people who get paid by a county, city, state, or the federal government as THE Government.
They are my employees.
Yours and mine.

So we need a word for those who do the work as an employee of ours.
We're the government, therefore, if MIT is giving us something to analyze the 'government' then they are in theory giving something to analyze ourselves - we're no better off than with Poindexter's toy.

We're the government - we need a term for our Rep, Senator, IRS employee, Energy Dept employee to make this wonderful effort more specific.

Davis and Pataki are not GOVERNers, they are CARETAKERS and our
FACILITATORS.

Bush and Clinton do/did not PRESIDE over us - they lead us. Some up a hill and some over a cliff, but they lead.

The House and Senate our ours - not the corporations, the military, the bankers, the media, the reverends, the manufacturers and earth exploiters.

We need a term other than government for those who are supposed to work for us.