TIA.

This is coolbert:

Here is a web site [click here to see the site] that at one time was part of the Total Information Awareness [TIA] program. TIA was to provide information and intelligence by gathering together data from a number of sources and make that data available for analysis. By using techniques such as "data mining".

This particular web site, Policy Analysis Market [PAM], a part [only a part] of the TIA program, was going to trade in "terrorist futures". Persons, world-wide, would trade futures with regard whether terrorist attacks were going to occur or not. Trade futures on terror as one would trade say futures on commodities.

When this particular part of TIA became know, the outrage and scorn was immense.

See these comments:

"Senate minority leader Tom Daschle took to the floor to denounce the program as "an incentive actually to commit acts of terrorism.""

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York), said she was appalled to hear of plans to set up "a futures market in death.""

"The idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridiculous and it's grotesque," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)"

"Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota criticized the market."

"Dorgan described the market as "unbelievably stupid."

"Can you imagine if another country set up a betting parlor so that people could go in ... and bet on the assassination of an American political figure or the overthrow of this institution or that institution?" he said."

The idea was dropped about as fast as the lead balloon would drop.

A private concern still thought this was a good idea and took over the web site, with a promise to still trade in "terror futures". It seems the site is still on the web, as you can see, but is NOT active.

This is too bad!! The idea is sound!!

"Analysts often use prices from various markets as indicators of potential events."

"This price discovery process, with the prospect of profit and at pain of loss, is at the core of a market's predictive power." [the predictive power in this case would be to predict to some degree of probability, with some degree of certainty, future terrorist events.]

"The PAM trading interface presents A Market in the Future of the Middle East."

Click here to see a whole page containing positive comments about PAM.

Click here to see another web site that comments on the idea of what they call, "Idea Futures
(a.k.a. Prediction Markets, Information Markets)"

[this stuff is already out there, and has been for some time, and is being done, trading in futures of all sorts, as we speak!!]

Was the proposed trading in futures in terror a bad idea!!

NO!!

Futures traders, normally trading in commodities, DO have their own apparatus analogous to an intelligence network available to them. To evaluate the future of a commodity with regard to it's value. That is why they call it FUTURES. They, the traders, are looking ahead to see what the price of a commodity will be in the future so as to make sound decisions that lead to a profit. When trading commodities, whatever the nature of the commodity, the trader MUST have data and information to process so as to make sound decisions. They cannot trade successfully unless they have at their disposal intelligence, either of their own devising or someone else's [there are private concerns that provide such analysis for a cost].

The Policy Analysis Market [PAM] was a way to do trading on the international level and get input from a whole lot of astute individuals as to what direction international terrorism would take. COULD have provided valuable intelligence into the whole anti-terrorist war.

This WAS an unwise and foolhardy decision to drop the PAM program. We need all the help we can get in the anti-terror war. Do not drop a program for what are very superficial and not well thought out arguments of nay sayers!!

[personal comment. Traders in the terrorist "futures" would be betting their own MONEY as to whether or not a particular future "terrorist event" would happen or not. These traders would be BETTING shrewdly, or at least one would think so, BECAUSE THEIR OWN MONEY WOULD BE AT STAKE. A government analyst, not betting his own money, DOES NOT RUN THIS RISK.]

coolbert.