“OK,” said Paulo. “That seems like an appropriate starting point. Enzo will then give us an update on the technology which concerns us most and the status of locating the missing data. Finally, he can give us a primer on the consequences of the dissemination of this material using that the technology he will describe.”
“Then please, continue,” he said.
Enzo began, “What we think we know is that Tomas di Gensarii appeared to be working on a book, a kind of history, or perhaps more accurately, an encyclopedia or compendium of our people. He had drawn resources and information from our many repositories, including the Great Library, related to both the history and culture of our kind. Many of those resources were primary source documents, originals and not the digital copies he should have been provided.”
Enzo looked around, then continued. “The book, which we now believe he called the Book of Gensarii, was to be a complete, accurate and up to date record of all things regarding the Gens Collective. This included the Gens view of homo sapiens, the internal Gens political struggles and traditional Gens views of how to deal with the challenges of “human” infestation. The Book was designed to be a historical record and overview of our kind that future Gens could use as a history and guide of what is and what used to be.”
An Elder from Asia asked, “Why? Why would we need such a book? We have been instructing our children and acolytes in the ways of the Collective for thousands of years. Did he not realize the danger in which he was putting the entire Gens Collective by writing such a manuscript? Now it’s out of our hands and the worst possible and unthinkable outcome may become a reality.”
Paulo interrupted, “We may never know what his full motivations were. What I do know now is that he believed that a human/Gens apocalypse was about to come to pass; that it was only a matter of time.”
“So?”
“So, Tomas believed we could not win the war against the humans and that the casualties on both sides would be in the tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions - dead. He believed that once humanity discovered who and what we are, they would waste no time in attempting to exterminate us as “abominations” of nature. If so, he believed we needed to record our history and culture to preserve our way of life for the survivors.”
“The annihilation of the Gens Collective?” The Elder from Asia was shocked. To him discovery might go badly but not the Gens equivalent of genocide. That was one leap in logic too far.
Paulo said forcefully “I said, that’s what he believed. Whether his beliefs were true does not much matter now. He believed, then he acted.”
The Elder continued, his disbelief in the rashness of the unsanctioned project palpable. “But we’ve known this as a possible consequence of discovery for thousands of years. Why the concern suddenly? What had changed? For him or any of us, I mean.”
Enzo spoke up, “In short, technology. The DataLab Project. And the possibility that humans might resort to using science to decimate our kind through biology, chemistry or genetics. The ability to find us, round us up and kill us in large numbers was never greater in his mind than today. When he found out about the DataLab Project, he was convinced that the time for action was imminent; time and technology were working against us and we needed to be prepared for an immense range of potential future scenarios.”
Someone shouted out, “Such as?”
“One possibility is that, in the apocalypse scenario, we win and begin a reduction in the sheer volume of mankind. This outcome could only result from the research we are currently undertaking globally but which is neither operational nor complete. We’re still a few years away from even limited testing.”
“What else?”
“Another possibility is that they win, resulting in the general eradication of our people, our expulsion from human society and a return to the deep wild and uncharted places for those that still remain. Life as we know it and our culture in transformed state would very likely be destroyed for all time. Our numbers would be reduced, and we would rarely if ever transform again.”
A senior acolyte from Great Britain said, “These have always been the risks we face when dealing with humans.”
Enzo replied, “But until now we could remain virtually undetected and our numbers were sufficient to make extinction an unlikely outcome. But with new science and technology, they could find us, kill us and eliminate us as a species in a few short years. That’s what has changed. Slow and often inaccurate advancement in human science and technology always protected us. If the humans come to know for certain that we exist and then accurately determine our numbers and locations, it could be a disaster.”
The Elder from Africa was incredulous, “Were his fears justified?”
“Justified?” Enzo paused, then said, “I don’t know. I reiterate, this is what he foresaw. This is what he feared. I cannot say I disagree with him, at least in the immediacy of the problem, but it seems that the very thing he fervently wished to avoid, our discovery, may be the very thing he has now hastened. But there still may be time to set things right if we act quickly and decisively and have a little luck on our side.”
“Go on.”
“The real threat and the best solution for our kind may lie coincidentally with the DataLab Project.”
“How so?”
“The DataLab Project poses a threat to us because of the functionality it possesses. If all the data that Tomas collected is translated into English, as an example, it could potentially be used to identify and locate every Gens on the planet, at least all of us in human form. They would undoubtedly find all the Preserves and could know the many locations of the primitive areas preferred by our wild brethren. They would be able to find all our Libraries and have all our knowledge. Then the humans could begin the systematic elimination of our folk as a species as if we are perceived as a threat to their dominance.”
Enzo paused, looked around at the assembled faces, and continued, “It would not take long for the humans to form the opinion that the planet is not big enough for both species to co-exist, each seeking dominance. One species would have to go. They would invariably choose us as the departing species. And, I believe, as did Tomas, that the humans have the will, desire and destructive capability to achieve our complete and total destruction. In the end, there may be little or nothing we can do about it. Our only options are to maintain our historic level of secrecy while we formulate options, defenses and strategies.”
A senior acolyte from South America asked, “So, your advice is what then?”
“Find the Human who stole from us, eliminate him as a threat and recover our Library. We must find a way to prevent the humans from ever uploading those materials to the DL Main, the central computer in the DataLab Project.”
“By eliminate, you mean …”
“Find them fast and kill them. Kill them all. We need time to develop the offensive weapons and strategies and defenses that will protect us now and in the future. Then we can bargain, if that is possible, or we go to war if they are unreasonable.”
“Mutually assured destruction?”
“It’s a simple matter of survival. But yes. If they push the button, so do we.”
Chapter 27
7
To say that the DataLab Project was evolving at lightning speed would have been the understatement of the decade. That speed of development had generated a few problems that had not been expected if the pace been slower and more measured.
There were three aspects of the DataLab Project that were driving its success resulting in incredible new demands on the project’s mainframe, the DL Main. First was large scale and continuously improved data identification, collection, input/storage and retrieval through advances in digital technology. This included both software and hardware. Second were advanced cutting-edge problem solving artificial intelligence algorithms. This was not true artificial intelligence as in science fiction movies, but it was what real computer scientists call
the creation of intelligent problem-solving machines. Third were new, broader and more rigorous demands for access to the DL Main by new users in business, academia and government due to its well-earned reputation for success in problem solving.
Funding from government and revenue streams from various new users made these advances and rapid development possible. As advances in functionality were developed, the demand for access and time on the DL Main grew. It was a vicious cycle.
As the word spread that the DL Main had begun to achieve remarkable results, often anecdotal and confined only to specific disciplines, new tasks were invented by new users for the DL Main to solve. Some of these tasks had been previously unsolvable, or thought to be, using existing hardware and software technology. Too slow.
There had been a time when all three aspects were managed competently on a specific and coordinated basis by the original project manager, the Central Authority. All aspects were integrated to achieve the stated research goals of the DataLab Project which was to support government, academic and limited commercial interests. The original research projects, however, paled in complexity to the new uses envisioned for the capabilities of the DL Main by forward thinkers in a new and more sophisticated user community.
But when the United States government, through Congressional funding and oversight, became involved not so subtle changes began to take place to protect DataLab Project IP in the interest of national security. The federal government felt obligated to address these proffered legitimate concerns and imposed new rules to address them. Lobbying being what it is, private industry had its own wish list for the new rules limiting access to the mega DL Main to freeze out foreign and even some domestic competition. That too contributed to the burgeoning complexity surrounding the rapidly evolving DataLab Project.
By 2006, the United States federal government had begun pushing for changes to established legal and regulatory parameters to permit “isolation access”; that is, access to the DL Main anonymously, both as to the precise data accessed as well as user identification. When the Central Authority was subsequently abolished, and its portfolio reorganized, overall legal and operating authority was moved too. But where and to whom, was, at best, unclear.
Operating authority, as well as the names of key individuals within that authority, became classified as beyond top secret. All aspects of the DataLab Project were now a matter of national security. Specific information and the names and responsibilities of key technology and project management individuals would now only be disclosed on a “need to know” basis. And few outsiders, it was determined, needed to know. Top managers were seldom disclosed except to specific Congressional subcommittees, specific senior Members of the Cabinet and the heads of FBI, CIA and NSA.
Before its demise, the Central Authority had long followed the principle that the DataLab Project was subject both to “neutral usage” and “oriented usage”. Neutral usage was simply defined as a query designed to determine if any of the information sought existed in the system, and if so, how much. Oriented usage was a narrower inquiry and specific software and algorithms were often developed by interested parties to solve specific and often complex research assignments.
As the DataLab Project grew in size, scope and complexity, significant concerns were voiced about privacy issues, international usage and the potential for misuse or abuse. The Department of Homeland Security, when it became fully apprised of the enormous system of data storage and retrieval and the capabilities of the DL Main, darted directly to Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in record time to restrict who could any longer have access.
Numerous government agencies, including law enforcement and national security agencies, began to selectively add data from their own databases along with specialized software and their own compatible computer technology to the DL Main. Much of the new data was added at the request of these agencies, though the nature of and purposes behind these additions were never stated. Had it been made public, this would have made privacy experts cringe and national security fanatics rejoice as the ability to track and profile individuals, their movements and locations could, theoretically, be more easily tracked. This was in fact the case, and not a theory.
New predictive analytics and modeling software and algorithms had been developed by private think tanks, including by Dr. Bitsie Tolan and, later, by Dr. Adam St. James. This software was proven to be adaptable and useful, then quickly sold to government and industry. The confluence of these two events made privacy rights advocates, at least the few who were aware of them, go almost completely ape shit.
But the public had not been made aware that the DL Main was now a dangerously invasive tool that could be used by anyone with appropriate access clearance to monitor and track members of the public. All information contained in most government and commercial databases were eventually added to the massive information depository that had become the DL Main. Few commercial organizations or agencies realized that once added, the data never came out and became readily available to those who had highest level access.
The President quickly issued National Security Directives in the form of Executive Orders and Congress, now understanding the potential for abuse by “terrorists”, “organized crime”, “hostile foreign governments” and other classified threats, took immediate action to regulate access and security surrounding the DL Main and the DataLab Project as a whole.
The DataLab Project Board of Governors, recently created by Congress to govern the public aspects of access to the DataLab Project, reported to Congress as a part of its oversight responsibilities.
Congress then appropriated funding to accomplish the full transfer of the entire project into the hands of the United States Government, subject to its prior commitments to the Canadian authorities and Canadian Parliament. Then the whole matter was finalized with a few strokes of the pen and a few keystrokes on a computer at Langley and in DC. Ottawa was informed by the NSA through channels after the fact.
The new Canadian Prime Minister was furious but held few cards in a deck stacked against him. But he still held all the wild cards which were in far Western Canada. They were not exactly his to play but close enough for his purposes.
He was confidant of that. And he was correct.
The new Prime Minister remained in direct contact with the two top officials running the DataLab Project and received regular updates on various aspects of the program including what his American allies were up to.
The DL Main was still available to academic researchers and commercial interests but now all users had to be licensed after a thorough vetting and only after security clearances were obtained. Large portions of the DL Main database were now off limits even to licensed users, but the tool was still a formidable resource for qualified users undertaking specific research.
Neither neutral usage nor oriented usage was inherently good or bad, legal or illegal or necessarily subject to potential abuse. But both could cross legal and ethical boundaries, particularly in the privacy and confidentiality areas. And especially if the project needed data from restricted data modules; that is, modules of proprietary data stored in the database but supposedly cordoned off by the owner of the data. In theory, this meant private data remained private.
Unfortunately, defining a data module as “restricted” rarely prevented high clearance and high access users, those with top security and access clearances, from accessing this data or indeed, any other private and confidential data. In theory, if the US government needed access to all data to ostensibly keep the country safe, accessing private data would be permitted. If you did nor want to permit access, then use another database.
When it came to the topic of isolation access, therein lay the rub. Misuse of isolation access for illegal purposes or objectives would, again, in theory be restrained through clearly delineated and highly effective access and use protocols. Severe criminal penalties for misuse were defined and codified into law and explained in d
etail in corresponding regulations. Thus, the legalistic thinking went, isolation access would be reconsidered, if only for a few well-defined class of users. And so, in 2007, when the last remnants of the Central Authority management were finally and permanently eliminated, all updated management and governance functions, as well as legal authority for the DataLab Project, were transferred to an entirely new federal authority.
That authority, as well as the composition and organization of that new federal management body, was never made public. Its funding was buried deep in the budget of numerous departments within the security services who now had operational control of the DataLab Project, along with the DataLab Advisory and Oversight Panel. The DLAOP was comprised of the political toadies of the security services carving up the turkey and paying lip service to Congressional oversight. The DLAOP did nothing to protect the public or inform Congress about anything of consequence; indeed, it did its best to avoid any oversight at all, specifically from Congress. The DLAOP devolved into nothing more than a group of political hacks who could not find a payday elsewhere.
But they did publish beautiful full color glossy Quarterly Reports. The information contained in those Quarterly Reports were largely either pure fiction or irrelevant.
The mission of the DataLab Project was redefined with newly established security, access and use protocols put in place. These new protocols permitted, among other radical and undisclosed changes including the use of isolation access by the United States government and its designees.
Only the law and its implied threat of punishment stood between compliance and abuse. Unfortunately for the world, those having the authority to investigate and bring charges were the same entities who would likely be misusing the DL Main. With this intentional perversion of the law in mind, Congress then enacted legislation to then provide these security services with all the necessary statutory authority to fulfill their express mission to protect the American people. If they occasionally transgressed their authority, who cared? In fact, who would ever even know? Disclosure of use or users was now a felony.
Discovery Page 48
