DARPA's FutureMap-- terminated
Washington (AFP)
I find this fascinating. This was the kind of thing that I'd expect to see in one of George Orwell's novels, not in the news. Who knows what kind of other arcane projects our government has been doing with taxpayer's money? This is of the same strangeness as the 'Psychic Surveilance' race in the Cold War.
But I must admit that on some level, I'm deeply fascinated with this. Who knows? Could following a certain trend give insight to the future of a completely unrelated trend? Stephen Wolfram thinks so. What do you think?
Quote:
The Pentagon said Tuesday it was terminating an experimental program to set up an online futures market where traders could bet on future terrorist attacks and assassinations in the Middle East.
"My understanding is that it has been terminated," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said when asked by members of Congress about the controversial program sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
"It sounds like maybe they got too imaginative in this case," he said.
Called "Futures Market Applied to Prediction" or FutureMap, the program was created by the same Pentagon office that drew fire last year for proposing surveillance of electronic transactions on a massive scale to detect traces of terrorist activities.
The latest scheme sought to use market forces as a tool for predicting future political events and avoiding strategic surprises.
Plans called for setting up an Internet-based market where as many as 10,000 participants would in effect bet on the timing and probability of possible major events such as the assassination of Yasser Arafat or King Abdullah II of Jordan.
"Futures markets have proven themselves to be good at predicting such things as elections results; they are often better than expert opinions," the agency said in a statement Monday.
But US Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, both Democrats, on Monday demanded that the proposed three million dollar program stopped before it starts registering traders on August 1.
"The idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and grotesque," Wyden, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters Monday.
Wyden has been prominent among congressional critics of another DARPA program, Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA), a computer surveillance initiative that raised concerns about invasions of individuals' privacy.
He said the new "Policy Analysis Market" trading scheme is overseen by TIA chief retired admiral John Poindexter, a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, in which US officials illegally funded Nicaraguan rebels with proceeds from also-illegal arms sales to Iran in the mid-1980s.
Dorgan described the Internet scheme as "unbelievably stupid."
"How would you feel if you were the King of Jordan and you learned the US defense department was taking bets on your being overthrown within a year?" he added, noting that Jordan has long been a US ally.
Confronted by Democratic senators at a hearing Tuesday, Wolfowitz said he had first learned about the program that morning from newspaper accounts.
"I share your shock at this kind of program. We will find out about it. But it is being terminated," he said.
DARPA director Anthony Tether, in a statement cancelling the program, said it "faced a number of daunting technical and market challenges."
"Reconsidering those challenges in light of the recent conerns surrounding the program, it became clear that it simply did not make sense to continue our participation in this effort," he said.
In much the same way as Middle East analysts have used petroleum futures contract prices to predict events in the region, DARPA's contracts would focus on "the economic, civil, and military futures of Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey and the impact of US involvement with each," according to the agency's "Policy Analysis Market" Web site.
Traders, who would have to deposit money with the market before being able to make any trades, would buy contracts for an event they considered likely and attempt to sell contracts if they thought it unlikely.
The more buyers there were for a contract -- say, Arafat's assassination in the first quarter of 2004 -- the more likely it would be considered and the higher the price. If the event came to pass, buyers would cash in and sellers would lose out.
The Internet market site would have been run by private technology firm Net Exchange with data and analysis provided by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the business information arm of the publisher of The Economist magazine.
The Pentagon said Tuesday it was terminating an experimental program to set up an online futures market where traders could bet on future terrorist attacks and assassinations in the Middle East.
"My understanding is that it has been terminated," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said when asked by members of Congress about the controversial program sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
"It sounds like maybe they got too imaginative in this case," he said.
Called "Futures Market Applied to Prediction" or FutureMap, the program was created by the same Pentagon office that drew fire last year for proposing surveillance of electronic transactions on a massive scale to detect traces of terrorist activities.
The latest scheme sought to use market forces as a tool for predicting future political events and avoiding strategic surprises.
Plans called for setting up an Internet-based market where as many as 10,000 participants would in effect bet on the timing and probability of possible major events such as the assassination of Yasser Arafat or King Abdullah II of Jordan.
"Futures markets have proven themselves to be good at predicting such things as elections results; they are often better than expert opinions," the agency said in a statement Monday.
But US Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, both Democrats, on Monday demanded that the proposed three million dollar program stopped before it starts registering traders on August 1.
"The idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and grotesque," Wyden, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters Monday.
Wyden has been prominent among congressional critics of another DARPA program, Terrorism Information Awareness (TIA), a computer surveillance initiative that raised concerns about invasions of individuals' privacy.
He said the new "Policy Analysis Market" trading scheme is overseen by TIA chief retired admiral John Poindexter, a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal, in which US officials illegally funded Nicaraguan rebels with proceeds from also-illegal arms sales to Iran in the mid-1980s.
Dorgan described the Internet scheme as "unbelievably stupid."
"How would you feel if you were the King of Jordan and you learned the US defense department was taking bets on your being overthrown within a year?" he added, noting that Jordan has long been a US ally.
Confronted by Democratic senators at a hearing Tuesday, Wolfowitz said he had first learned about the program that morning from newspaper accounts.
"I share your shock at this kind of program. We will find out about it. But it is being terminated," he said.
DARPA director Anthony Tether, in a statement cancelling the program, said it "faced a number of daunting technical and market challenges."
"Reconsidering those challenges in light of the recent conerns surrounding the program, it became clear that it simply did not make sense to continue our participation in this effort," he said.
In much the same way as Middle East analysts have used petroleum futures contract prices to predict events in the region, DARPA's contracts would focus on "the economic, civil, and military futures of Egypt, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey and the impact of US involvement with each," according to the agency's "Policy Analysis Market" Web site.
Traders, who would have to deposit money with the market before being able to make any trades, would buy contracts for an event they considered likely and attempt to sell contracts if they thought it unlikely.
The more buyers there were for a contract -- say, Arafat's assassination in the first quarter of 2004 -- the more likely it would be considered and the higher the price. If the event came to pass, buyers would cash in and sellers would lose out.
The Internet market site would have been run by private technology firm Net Exchange with data and analysis provided by the Economist Intelligence Unit, the business information arm of the publisher of The Economist magazine.
I find this fascinating. This was the kind of thing that I'd expect to see in one of George Orwell's novels, not in the news. Who knows what kind of other arcane projects our government has been doing with taxpayer's money? This is of the same strangeness as the 'Psychic Surveilance' race in the Cold War.
But I must admit that on some level, I'm deeply fascinated with this. Who knows? Could following a certain trend give insight to the future of a completely unrelated trend? Stephen Wolfram thinks so. What do you think?
Comments
the Links page connects to papers on castpoint theory and more
fascinating stuff. many clever concepts. destined to make a great movie.
Could following a certain trend give insight to the future of a completely unrelated trend? Stephen Wolfram thinks so. What do you think?
Yes.
(nice thread, BTW
Originally posted by Placebo
But it also could have been a terrible folly....
I'm more worried that it would be a terrible folly because some people would act to make sure their investments paid off.
Originally posted by Towel
I really don't think it's that strange or shocking. It's a new way to try to understand and predict events in that rather unpredictable part of the world. Our intelligence agencies have a hard time making accurate "expert" analyses, so why not try a market-based meta-analysis?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because it doesn't work?
That the market can deliver insight into the workings of any system, and is some kind of meta-intelligence that never fails is an article of faith in certain circles. It's also a fallacy.
You may recall something that has become known as "the internet bubble." Do a google for it; had something to do with markets. In addition, the price the market was prepared to pay for shares in companies such as Enron (google for that too) was an excellent example about the truth of a situation and the market's appraisal of that situation being totally different.
This is before the moral issues come into play. George Soros (google!), who has made zillions from the market calls this "market fundamentalism" and points out that market prices are almost always wrong.
Originally posted by bunge
I'm more worried that it would be a terrible folly because some people would act to make sure their investments paid off.
There was going to be a $100 limit on any investment. The money was just there to encourage people to think about their decisions, not to make anyone serious money. That's what the real stock market is for.
Originally posted by Placebo
I find this fascinating. This was the kind of thing that I'd expect to see in one of George Orwell's novels, not in the news. Who knows what kind of other arcane projects our government has been doing with taxpayer's money? This is of the same strangeness as the 'Psychic Surveilance' race in the Cold War.
But I must admit that on some level, I'm deeply fascinated with this. Who knows? Could following a certain trend give insight to the future of a completely unrelated trend? Stephen Wolfram thinks so. What do you think?
You know, me too! Fascinating
Just thinking how people can manipulate the system to make lots of money boggles the mind. This is probably the number one reason why it shouldn't happen.
But as a mental exercise, if everyone is honest, would it really work? If it does indicate actual terrorist activity, does it mean that white collar buyers and sellers are associated with terrorists in the 1st place. Err, I take the preceding rumination back. Yes, of course white collar buyers and sellers have associations with terrorists. Why, Poindexter himself helped secretly raised funds to support a terrorist insurgency in a Central American nation by selling weapons to another terrorist supporting nation.
So would these rich Saudis actually participate in this market? I believe current laws would make illegal for civil servants to profit from their work outside of their gov't salary, so the spooks probably can't participate, and the market would lose a powerful input. So, Poindexter wouldn't have made any profit from it if he was honest.
Ok, I think my cynicism is beginning to show. But it is a fascinating mental exercise...
Originally posted by Towel
There was going to be a $100 limit on any investment. The money was just there to encourage people to think about their decisions, not to make anyone serious money. That's what the real stock market is for.
Without the promise of real money, ie, the incentive, how could the system work?
Originally posted by THT
Without the promise of real money, ie, the incentive, how could the system work?
It works for the same reason those $1 game theory experiments work. People still want to maximize their gain, even the absolute size of the gain isn't much to crow about. Besides, the money's primary purpose is to serve as a metric, not a reward.
Originally posted by Placebo
The problem is that if we all knew our future, we'd change the future, and then no prophecies would end up being true, thus undermining the system.
But then we wouldn't actually know the future
The same idea is used to make normally very precise election forecast with. Of course there is a lot more hidden info when it comes to terrorism so it is very likely not to work appied to that area.
But morally wrong? I really see no reason for that. Is it because people can earn money on predicting other peoples deaths? What about the thousands of people in CIA then? Do they work for free?
Try to compare this program with the Total Information Awareness program which let your freedom loving government connect all the dots of your personal life (credit card transactions, Phone calls etc.) to make a profile of you and your probability of being a threath to it. This is completly inpersonal and doesn´t have any surveilliance build is. It doesn´t threatens the integrity of any individual. Why people can be worked up over a marked based intelligence system and not over something that combines "1984" and "enemy of the state" is beyond me.