Slashdot Mirror
False Information A-Okay in Primary FBI Database
blamanj writes "The FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC), which compiles a huge database on criminals, arrest warrants, missing persons, etc., no longer has to put up with the pesky problem of ensuring the data is accurate. I guess the Justice Department isn't particularly concerned with justice anymore." The full text of the provision which the main FBI criminal database will no longer have to adhere to is: "Each agency that maintains a system of records shall ... maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness to the individual in the determination."
They don't need to keep accurate records of what you've done when they can just make up whatever the hell they want on the spot. If there's room for error, there's room for exploitation.
has anyone else noticed that while liberties in many other places in the world is on the rise, Liberties at home seem to be more and more restricted and monitored? How can we free other peoples and nations when we can't even free ourselves?
Perhaps we should just randomly start shooting people because they might be guilty. Opps! Never mind, we are already doing that. I'm so behind the times.
why do we have to worry about justice, when it's easier to just blame it all on the terrorists.
Even if they can't verify all of the information that they put in, what they could do is record whether/how a data item has any verification status (or even possibly, falsification status).
It surprises me how often databases of information that it is vital to check for accuracy/truth/reliability just don't have any content that indicates how far, if at all, any of the main data content has actually been checked (and by whom and against what comparator). Ideally there should be an audit trail for where the data came from and who entered/checked it. Better than nothing would be some kind of indicator that this data item is either unchecked (by anybody other than the person who added it), or else has been checked as either ok, or doubtful, or not ok (and when, and who checked it).
Terry
Now that plus PATRIOT is a nice formula for abuse. "Mr. Smith, we see that you have recently converted some of your holdings to cash and our database gives us reason to believe that you are going to give it to terrorists, so we have seized it. We don't have any evidence with which to charge you, but we will be watching you. No, of course you can't have the money back."
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
... punks worrying about nothing but yourself! We got a $74 billion pointless war to fight for the love of god! We can't expect the government to have to pay money to protect our freedom!
With this new policy, bad data will affect you and your ability to, say, travel without strip searches. And you'll have few (meaning zero) opportunities to fix it. But the best part is that the bad data will creep out to taint anyone you associate with: you'll now have a permanent case of dataSARS. If you're a possible terrorist, then your old roommates might be too. And your new business partners. And whoever you call regularly, so now grandma gets a breast cancer screening whenever she flies.
I think the privacy commissioner of Canada is a precog: most of what he's warning about in his must-read essay on privacy is coming true. (Or Ashcroft is using it as an anti-blueprint):
" If information that is actually about someone else is wrongly applied to us, if wrong facts make it appear that we've done things we haven't, if perfectly innocent behavior is misinterpreted as suspicious because authorities don't know our reasons or our circumstances, we will be at risk of finding ourselves in trouble in a society where everyone is regarded as a suspect. By the time we clear our names and establish our innocence, we may have suffered irreparable financial or social harm.
"Worse yet, we may never know what negative assumptions or judgments have been made about us in state files... Decisions detrimental to us may be made on the basis of wrong facts, incomplete or out-of-context information or incorrect assumptions, without our ever having the chance to find out about it, let alone to set the record straight.
" That possibility alone will, over time, make us increasingly think twice about what we do, where we go, with whom we associate, because we will learn to be concerned about how it might look to the ubiquitous watchers of the state..."
"The bottom line is this: If we have to live our lives weighing every action, every communication, every human contact, wondering what agents of the state might find out about it, analyze it, judge it, possibly misconstrue it, and somehow use it to our detriment, we are not truly free. That sort of life is characteristic of totalitarian countries, not a free and open society...
And I'm amazed at the forgetfulness of the average person. Laws such as the 1974 Privacy Act were in response to the massive, intrusive, unconstitutional acts of the FBI during the 1950s and 1960s. The kind of surveillance we're now seeing were done surreptitiously by the FBI in attempts to sabotage the Civil Rights movement, and the anti-war movement during Vietnam.
We live in the freest country on Earth? Does this have something to do with that whole, war is peace, slavery is freedom thing? Just what other countries are you comparing the US to when you say this? Have you visited other countries?
If you want to sit back while your entire life is reduced to nothing more than data in a database, that's fine, but I believe that a human being is more than just data. I believe I have an intrinsic right to human dignity - something which is taken away when my entire life becomes an entry in some damned database to be searched through, scrutinized, colated, etc. My government has absolutely no right to catalog and judge every moment of my life, and I'll be damned if I'm going to let my children grow up in a nation where they have to watch what they say and do, lest they be mistaken for a "threat".
If you think it's anti-American to question the tactics and policies of the government, then you know not the first thing about what it is to be an American. I believe you'll find the regimes in China, Iraq, Iran, or North Korea more to your liking, as those who question the government there are shot. I question my government's actions and plans because I recognize that it is a servant of the people. As such, I have a right and a duty to question anything I see as degrading the service provided to me and my fellow citizens by our government. If you don't like it, move; I really don't give a damn.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
In any case dimwit they wouldn't be imprisoned. They would be thrown out of jobs, possibly deported after having their citizenship revoked, very probably taken to Camp X-Ray and interrogated for a year or so then dropped off in the middle of cairo dressed in a tutu and boa with a sign nailed to their back saying "I'd rather fuck a camel but you'll do big boy".
And meanwhile the terrorist is quietly learning the next in a set of skills designed to rain death on your head.
No-one deserves to die but I keep finding more and more people who will not be missed.
Nobody guarantees that Usenet is accurate, or the web. They capture any garbage anyone ever produces, and Google indexes it for everyone. The reader knows this, and distinguishing wheat from chaff is usually possible, and not too hard.
The stakes involved with Usenet or the web being inaccurate are typically far lower. If you read inaccurate data on the web, what happens? Nothing, really. If the FBI has inaccurate data in their database that says you're a murderer, what happens? They follow you around and arrest you the first time you doing anything suspicious.
And distinguising wheat from chaff on the internet is a bit easier than in a person-information database. Sure, I can use reason to determine that the website that says that the earth is flat is inaccurate. It's a lot harder for someone who doesn't know anything about you except for what they're reading in your file to determine that the information saying you're a serial killer is inaccurate.
If I have a mark on my record that I killed my great-great-grampa, followed by some authoritative marks that I really didn't and that first mark was in error, that looks fair to me. Not editing history is a good thing.
Personally, I would prefer to NOT have a mark on my record saying I killed my great-great-grandpa, no matter how many marks were added saying I didn't do it. And removing the killer mark doesn't look like editing history to me. It looks a lot more like telling the truth.
Try Finland. Try Sweden, Iceland ,Denmark...
How many do you need ?
Craig Livingstone got a severe whining at for providing the White House with hundreds of FBI reports--plenty of blackmail material which proved quite useful during the Clinton impeachment vote in congress. Just ask Larry Flynt.
Conversely, Chuck Colson went to Federal Prison for disclosing one FBI report, providing the Watergate with a convenient conviction.
Who cares what's in the FBI files since they'll only be used for political purposes by moral relativists.
Tell that to the states with a death penalty.
Having inaccurate FBI/crime records will help purge the voter rolls in 2004 of all those pesky people who DIDN'T commit a felonies but who happen to be of the wrong demographic....
Perhaps the mere thousands of legit voters who were
purged in Florida 2000 can be increased to 10,000's as the database goes nationwide!
And watch all your suits get thrown out because the relevant info is not made available to the court, on the grounds that it would "impact national security" for the FBI to provide statistics on the reliability of the database...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
However, some conservatives seem to be coming around; see here and here.
There is also judicial review, under which a judge can can declare that a law or regulation is "irrational" or "does not achieve its intended purpose" (IIRC), but that's not got much teeth.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Try speaking publicly against issues guarded by zealots, you'll quickly find you have no protections at all.
Have you looked at the PATRIOT act recently?
Thank you, Schoolhouse Rock!
My journal has hot
>For instance, what is the Just and Fair thing to happen to an American guy who things the taliban is
>morally correct and goes to Afghanistan to join them? Ok, now ask what should be done to prevent
>such a man from harming Americans. Different question, and a much more practical one.
OK, interesting example. So, say they discover some dude named John Schmoe goes to Afghanistan to join the Taliban effort. It's discovered that at some point he returns to the US, they put his name in their database to keep an eye on but get the social security number wrong and it coincidentally gets tham watching some completely different guy that happens to have the same name, Joe Schmoe. They track this second, non-dangerous dude down and make sure he won't hurt the American people, and consider the situation dealt with and finished.
Now, because they don't have to maintain accuracy for the purpose of fairness, this second guy that was going about his life, going to work, watching TV and eating at restaurants got "taken care of", even though he was of no threat whatsoever. The fed goons think there's no problem anymore, yet the real threat Joe Schmoe is still out there someplace.
It's completely possible that a corrupt database can punish perfectly innocent people and allow dangerous people to continue threatening the American populace. How can that be an improvement over making sure the database is accurate?
It's similar to my dead-beat dad, who I'm named after, who's bad credit has shown up on my credit report before, credit cards that are not mine and such, because they don't take much care in making sure that account's social security # matches my credit report file. Heck, I've even found wrong last names listed on my credit reports before, all because they are somewhat careless. I really don't like the idea of similar wrong things showing up in any files the FBI might have on me...
Getting a credit application declined for reasons not my fault is annoying, but surely less annoying than being thrown in a cell for a few days and getting grilled about things I know nothing about, just because they got the wrong guy. It's really not helpful in protecting the populace IMHO if you don't keep your data accurate...
If you don't like it, move;
Won't work. In a few years, American troops will be sent to "liberate" me, and before that, senior American officials will berate the goverment for allowing me to voice 'anti-American sentiment'.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.