Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley vs. Your Privacy
TreeRat submits word of an article in the New York Times' magazine section, including mention of the proposed national database which has been talked about on Slashdot before. "The story goes into great detail with Larry Ellison, who is still pushing hard to bring 'Big Brother' to life. When asked if this database will be created, and run on Oracle, Larry's response was 'I do think it will exist, and I think it is going to be an Oracle database. ...And we're going to track everything.' There's a lot more than Ellison in this piece, though, and much of it is scary.
Reading said article requires me telling the New York Times Magazine about my 'interests' and other personal data (including household income?!?!).. Considering the relationship of this post to the Big Brother(esque) mentality, the irony becomes to thick for me to handle--thus reducing me to a pile of incoherent literary rubble on the floor.
-twitch twitch-
Yes. And if your idea got through, it might even be that way for a month. But once the infrastructure to collect the data is in place, it is the silliest of idealism to think that the "your data would be deleted after you left the airport" clause would last ten years.
Social Security numbers were NEVER supposed to be used for anything but retirement accounts - and people who claimed they would someday be used as identification were called paranoid.
You say: This is compromise. I have an idea. I want you to send me $100, you don't want to send me anything, so why not just send me $50? This is compromise, too.
Giving people the power to take away your rights is not "compromise", it is capitulation
God is real unless declared integer
As usual, you can generate a random New York Times login every time with the registration generator I threw together. Share and enjoy.
The damage to this nation from the kind of thought you express here goes far beyond what you seem to think. Terrorists are trivial risks. Driving a car on any road on the US is infinitely more of a risk than encountering a terrorist. Never the less through the simple minded ideas of "acceptable risk" you assert your terror. Bin Laden has conquered your thought. The loss this causes is incalculable. It means women can't wear bobby pins on planes anymore, that your grandmother can't knit on a plane because her knitting needles might be used as weapons.
It means that some undereducated fool at a security check point will tell you "its for your own safety," when anyone that can think KNOWS that no US flight, and probably none anywhere will ever again be taken over by terrorists in the foreseeable futre because the 9-11 terrorists proved themselves liars. No passenger can ever again accept the risk of believing a terrorist's assertion that they won't be hurt. This "security" is not for your own good; it was not for your own good; it will never be for your own good. Building a reliable mass transit would be for your own good.
While you are thinking about this try running a simultaneous search on google for "Bush" and "bin Laden." After you read a few of THOSE hits, the fact that an ORACLE data base could monitor every emergency room bed in New York state "on the eve of " 9-11 might really get your paranoia going. Look into the stock transactions for American and United in the month immediately before 9-11 and try to correlate those moves with any news about the companies. Someone made several fortunes shorting them, but not all of the profits have been collected yet.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.