Slashdot Mirror
Don't Worry, We're Not From The Government
PolarBear3 writes "It seems that MSNBC.com is reporting that the government (U.S.) is looking to the private sector to data mine against it's [citizens|terrorists] since they are prevented by law from doing so themselves. Two quotes: 'People in the government, very much so in the Justice Department, have been playing out a lust for information that is not consistent with who we have been as a nation' & 'A range of laws limits how government can collect and use information on its citizens. The private sector, by contrast, operates under fewer restrictions.' Seems to show a nation fighting itself."
Soviet Russia?
Hoax #101 : USA is democratic country; a land of freedom where the government respects it's citizen's privacy.
...
How do the government spell "totalitarian" ? d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y ???
sigh
Irrelevant news and morons using moderation to mod down what they disagree on. 2018 resolution: so long.
Name me a corporation you would trust personal information with. Micro$oft? GE? IBM? Heck, I don't even trust my bank with my social security number!
In the process they have gathered records of people who are not suspects, he said. "Once they get it they like to keep it, because you never know when it might turn out to be useful."
So, we've got a ever growing database that's now got a HUGE budget to fuel it's growth. Anyone else scared?
Find out about my new childrens book: SS Death Camp Criminal Batallion Go To Monte Carlo For The Massacre
We can sue the h@ll out of a private company...
Nice to see how the neo-conservatives are eroding the rights of individuals by refusing to legislate any controls over corporaions, and all in the name of freedom.
Makes me glad I live in the EU where at least the governments will take on multi-nationals if it is in the public interest. In the US it seems as though most of the Republicans are in the pockets of corporate America and cracking down on any kind of social rights where-ever it will help the multinationals.
What it really does is prevent the legislature from protecting the little guy against large and powerful organisations. Claiming that all these things are done in the name of reduced government intervention, i.e. freedom, is the master stroke though. Unfortunately a large enough proportion of the population believe this and therefore vote for what is really an erosion of their rights.
This sounds to me very much like what Poindexter is doing/wants to do with DARPA and their various projects. Check out the TIA (Total Information Awareness) programme in particular, if you haven't heard about it yet.
This is old news, but somehow those things manage to remain fairly hidden, and just resurface once in a while. Esp. when America is at war, and people are just focused on Iraq news.
If it's illegal to collect this info and use it, then why would it be more legal if they used the private sector to achieve the same goal? Why don't they just admit the truth; that democracy and freedom is gone, that the constitution and bill of rights are nothing more than meaningless words?
And why the hell is USA trying to give democracy and liberty to other nations? USA doesn't have enough of that for themselves. They should concentrate on cherishing the little democracy and liberties they have, for it may well be gone in a few years. Enjoy it while you can.
USA really does seem to thrive on paranoia, and the people with most paranoia seems to be fast-tracked to high positions in the government and assorted TLA's. USA is already very very close to the type of state described in '1984' by Orwell, and it seems to do all it can to surpass the nightmare portrayed in the book.
Hopefully the citizens of USA will realise what is happening and either overthrow the government that is doing this against them, or leave the country behind on a permanent basis.
For being a country striking its chest and proclaiming to be the only true democracy in the world, USA is one of the most un-free countries in the world considering the continuous manipulation of its citizens to ensure that no-one speaks up too loudly against what is going on.
Just my 0.02 Euro
Swedish, but resident in the UK since 1996.
Besides the doubtless legality of all this, you might wonder if it is the correct approach towards the problem.
Pattern recognition can maybe point out an individual collecting materials to build a bomb of some sorts, but I doubt if it will be very effective against a group of potential terrorists plotting for a major strike, who are while making preparations, carefully avoid any member sticking out in any way.
I don't think that it's possible for the American Government to stop every terrorist attack directed at American targets. If a terrorsts wants to strike, he is able to, regardless of what is done to prevent him from it.
Maybe thought should be given to the question why a terrorist wants to strike...
I can't believe how much Americans are being dumped down, people what was hijacked in 911 was NOT your planes but your civil rights, freedom of speech..., and recently your government has been acting really really childish. wakeup before its too late, your grandsons will curse you for doing nothing about it.
... as Evian is actually owned by Coca-Cola...
I don't need a signature.
I don't really see that as "scary" - think about it: the people you buy stuff from know what stuff they sell to you. This has been true of shopkeepers for as long as they have existed! It's only a recent anomaly that shops became so large and impersonal that you dealt with a different person each time; 50 years ago, you would buy your meat from a butcher, who would simply remember what meat you bought last time. Granted, the database has a better memory for detail, but it isn't doing anything new: it's doing the same old thing, slightly better than before.
I'm a little more concerned about the idea of the government harvesting and combining all this kind of data, of course. Might that pack of CDRs I bought last month one day be a purchase that would flag me "potential pirate"?
Having said that, I'm reminded of the law requiring London taxi drivers to carry a bale of hay with them at all times. The law was passed back when taxis were horse-drawn, to ensure the horse was always properly fed; when taxis became horseless, the law stopped being enforced. These days, it's increasingly easy to enforce laws thoroughly - look at speed cameras, anti-theft tags in stores, CCTV. Previously, law enforcement had some built-in "slack": the police wouldn't bother chasing and stopping a driver doing 31 in a 30 limit - but with an automated camera, what's to stop them setting the trigger speed at 31 and sending out automated fines?
Really, we'll need some "housekeeping" done on laws. (The "hay in taxis" one was repealed a few years ago, by the way.) Instead of the law setting strict limits on behavior - in the knowledge they cannot be enforced strictly -as written - laws will have to define and justify the prohibitions much more precisely and thoroughly.
Ideally, we'd see a constitutional amendment (or equivalent) of "no crime without victim" - out go all the silly laws, from the "hay in taxis" law to restrictions on consenting sexual acts (Texas!). How on earth can you justify making something a crime, when you cannot show that it harms anybody?
> What will happen to me, now that John Ashcroft knows I bought a bottle of Evian water last weekend?
In 2 weeks time, they'll discover that the Evian you bought was contaminated with some minor health risk in some way... and then.. here's the best bit... they'll sell your information to the insurance companies who'll put up your life insurance premiums because you're more likey to die.
I know I'm paranoid, but I won't use store loyalty cards and I pay for my groceries in case. I just don't want a database in the world to know my brand choice for toilet roll, condoms and toothpaste.
It's none of their business and I strongly object to them holding that information about me... whoever they are.
A form of government in which the people choose between one of two candidates selected Party leaders, the real authorities. Both candidates and both parties equally suck but hardly anyone will vote outside the two parties for fear of "wasting their vote."
Each Party is controlled by one or more Corporations Blatantly obvious libertarian advertisement goes here.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Has it occured to you that this might have very little to do with preventing terrorism, and a great deal to do with crushing your civil rights? All of the intelligence gathering / data mining / snooping / call-it-what-you-will in the world is never going to be enough to stop somebody who is willing to give their life in order to kill me, and the Governments of the world know this. But the ever present threat of something (currently 'terrorism', it used to be 'communism') is a great cover for tearing up the constitution and feeding the ravenous military-industrial beast
R Tape loading error, 0:1
very definition of "Fascism".
A government working closely with private institutions to seek and maintain control over its populace.
That is THE basic definition of a fascist system. Just like pre-nazi germany, our leader seeks to maintain greater control over us with surveillance and fear tactics...
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the counrtry to danger. It works the same in any country"
-Hermann Goering. Hitler's designated successor, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials.
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier--there's no question about it."
-G.W. Bush 8/6/01 (It may be out of context, but... there you go)
Sig
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
There are a lot of unstated assumptions in the posts here that attack the US government. One is that our everyday activities are somehow private.
What we buy, where we go, where we live, and a great many other detials about our lives are not private; they are facts that are available to anyone who might be interested, and we have no God-given right to get upset if somebody collects them. We are not private entities, we are social entities, and that means that only those things that we deliberately hide are private: if we lock our secrets away, encrypt our messages, act so as to mislead anyone who MIGHT be watching, then we have privacy. But privacy is a condition, not a right.
There is no statement in the Bill of Rights, no part of the US Constitution that deals with privacy, because the fact of privacy has always been correctly recognized to be a state that is totally up to the individual to create regarding his affairs.
Now what you do in the sanctity of your residence is something else again, as the Constituion makes very clear: you are protected against unreasonable searches, for example. This reflects the feeling that "a man's home is his castle," a very English sentiment. It also expresses a concern for property rights. The framers of the Constitution could not justify denying protection from unreasonable searches to renters, but they were not defining privacy when they limited police power by placing it under judicial control (the court, not the police agency, issues the warrant to search).
The courts have presumed an aspect of privacy in their attitude toward abortion, however, and if this is extended, we may see a judicial effort to define privacy. It really should be done by Congress, if it is to be done. There is no constitutional concept of privacy, but that could be changed through constitutional amendment.
At present, the laws restrict the government from doing some things that any private citizen is free to do legally. This is the approach found in the Constitution: it clearly states that "Congress shall make no law..." and so on. It does not say that other entities, other than Congress, shall be restricted from, for example, limiting free speech. (Only after the Civil War were the restrictions on the federal Congress extended to the state legislatures. There for a while, the federal government could not do what the states could, and did.) We are, in other words, on solid legal ground with our current attitude toward privacy. And yes, it does seem to me illegal for the government to contract for private companies to do what the government is forbidden to do! "I won't bite you, but my dog will."
As for paranoia, it seems to me that the folks who are throwing a hissy-fit about data mining are the paranoids. Much ado about darn little, as I see it. But suppose the public disagrees with me. Well, if there is to be a comprehensive definition of privacy, along with an assertion that it is a fundamental human right -- so far there really is nothing substantial in this area -- it is up to the voters to tell their government what to do. Does anyone actually think the legislators would resist such a request from the public? There are many precedents to show that they would not, Prohibition and its repeal being just one. We can and will change the Constitution as we see fit, period.
One thing seems likely, IMHO: privacy is a legal area in which we need to spend some serious thought before we act. And our first act might well be to stop the government from hiring firms to do for it what it is not allowed to do itself.
For now, however, the basic situation is very simple: if you want privacy, then take the steps necessary to get it. You are able to select those aspects of your life you wish to hide from public view, and you will be able to do a very good job indeed of misleading the "Watchers."
So go to it, you nervous conspiracy theorists: hide from Them. After all, They are listening every time you call, aren't They? They a
It seems to me that although they are playing by the leter of the law, they are ignoring the intent. Now I can't say I'm surprised; it is usually in anyones best interests to take the path of least resistence, and if simply ignoring the intent does it, then so be it. However, it would appear that the simple way to avoid this sort of abuse is to change the law, so that rather than worrying about who collects the data, worry about who is the recipient of the data. That would mean that no matter who the Government asks to do their snooping (Private business, other Echelon nations etc.) is imaterial; they can't use it.
Not that the laws will ever be changed. The Governments of the world are nice and cosy with the arrangements they have now, thank you very much.
it's always amazed me that people will complain bitterly about the us govmint collecting/extracting/stealing/whatever personal data for whatever reason *THEN* they turn around and sell it major corps for pennies (store discount cards).
there are other corp data collection systems that don't even pay, but that's another story? poeple worry about the dept of homeland defense knowing what you watch, but the satalite companies know and (i suspect) will sell it to whoever wants to be a business partner.
e
An interesting Constitutional question - when Bush privatizes every government function, will the private contractors be bound by the same restrictions as is a governmental body? When private cops arrest you, do they need due cause? Do you get your rights read to you? Do you get to see a lawyer? Can they beat information out of you?
Chief Justice Thomas won't have a problem with that - it's not strictly proscribed, so let it rip!
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
This kind of oppression by proxy has been going on for decades, if not since America's conception. Workers have always lost many of their rights (including free speech and privacy) when they sign an employment contract. The only new aspect of this is that information technology allows the government to collate disparate information flows smoothly, so they can assemble a complete picture of what you're doing from your employer, utility services, and credit card bills.
The only way out of this is to monitor what information goes out. Don't do business with unethical companies, pay with cash when possible, etc. This kind of monitoring won't stop smart criminals -- it just keeps the population on a leash.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
. How on earth can you justify making something a crime, when you cannot show that it harms anybody?
Lie.
Seriously. They just lie about it. For example, in Virginia, our "crimes against nature" sodomy laws have been attacked each year with a bill to repeal them. When the bill comes up, several reps argue loudly that it will make pedophilia and incest legal. It's a blatent lie, but it seems to work each year.
Same thing happened when GHB became illegal federally. Link
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
They first started doing it for the CIA.
They have huge amounts of hard drive storage and lots of programmers.
now they sell to all big brother agencies... to SPY on americans on a per-lookup action.
That is all well and good. But you do not make even one substantiated statement. Everything you say can be take from you average badly written, set-in-the-present-day sci-fi novel, or the website of most any organization that believes the U.S. gonverment is composed of only people and agencies that are conspiring against the citizenry.
These are my questions:
If what you say is true, then I want to write my congressman about it and protest, or whatever.
But please, come with facts. Not this obviously inflamatory, unsubstantiated crap. If you don't want to give the information completely, then why did you post in the first place?
I suggest you ask any number of the maimed Iraqi's (a bit too late to ask the dead ones) whether no major acts of terrorism have occured.
They might have a different perspective to you.
Nice to see how the neo-conservatives are eroding the rights of individuals by refusing to legislate any controls over corporaions, and all in the name of freedom.
... doing business with the government? This makes no sense.
Let me get this straight: the government is to blame for not putting any controls on corporations that keep them from
The knee-jerk Leftist response is, "Greedy corporations want to take over all our rights." The unsaid response is, "Don't pay any attention to that Federal Government behind the curtain." Do people not see that it is, in fact, the government that wants to complile data on everyone and intrude on everyone's rights? Do people not see that a government with an insatiable hunger for power will stop at nothing to get what they want, and that includes paying corporations (who exist to make money, and here comes a paying customer with a guaranteed* paycheck) to bypass all of those pesky laws that limit the government?
Where does this "government good, corporations bad" nonsense come from? It is the government which imprisons thousands upon thousands every year for the mere act of smoking marijuana. It is the government which forcibly takes money from citizens to blast its propaganda on the Super Bowl. It is the government which forces people to pay money into a bankrupt, guaranteed-to-lose-money income redistrubution and vote-buying scheme (yes, it's Social Security). It is governments which killed millions in Germany, Russia, China, and Cambodia.
Corporations and governments can both be evil because of the fact that they are made up of fallible humans, not infallible angels. Governments have one power that corporations don't: the legal right to use deadly force to acheive their goals. It is for this reason that the power of government should be limited, not expanded.
*Guaranteed because if the government ever wants more money, all they have to do is haul out the guns and take it. They don't have to worry about working hard for money.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Someone's not really believing this.
if enough people cared, then he wouldn't have been elected.... Gore may have got 50%+ of those who voted, but he got about 35% of those eligible to vote.
While it is true that the majority of the American public are ignorant apathetic scumbags (read non-voters), the relevant fact which you chose to ignore is that if Jeb hadn't committed an act of treason then GWBush would not have been elected.
Also, we're talking about Bush. Not Gore. Bush.
The fact is that Bush committed an act of treason by stepping into the office under those conditions.
No, I believe government to be bad *and* corporations to be bad. And while you never argued that corporations weren't capable of causing major harm, asking "where does this government good, corporations bad nonsense come from" sure implies it.
:)
I didn't mention any of the points you raised because I agree with them. It's just that I don't see anything that can counter corporate excess other than government, especially when the media is owned by large corporations.
Get rid of Social Security. Pull US troops out of Europe and South Korea. Legalize, regulate, and heavily tax pot and other recreational drugs. Cut way back on foreign aid and tie it to human rights. Eliminate all business subsidies and tax breaks, and eliminate the alternative minimum tax too. Cut out all the crap in the government and cut taxes by increasing the standard exemption by about $10000.
But the budget for the SEC needs to go from 500 million to 2 billion. There's a tax on stock trades that's supposed to fund the SEC, and that money should go to the SEC. And some people at companies like Firestone do need to go to jail. This part of government that oversees corporate behaviou is the *one* part that needs to be expanded.
And I agree with going into Iraq. As far as Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc., all I'm seeing these days is people around the world being perfectly content with leaving monsters alone to brutalize their own people. Hell, the US didn't even get into WWII until we were attacked. Don't really see how to deal with NK without millions of people dying, but in the long run removing that regime would save lives.
And as far as the govt being able to "haul out the guns and take it" whenever they need money, I can recall one recent president that didn't get re-elected precisely because he did that.
As I see it, in the last 200 years, America has dragged large parts of the world towards democracy and freedom, while at the same time we've been dragged away from democracy and freedom by the world (major hits were caused by Civil War, Depression, WWII, Cold War, now terrorism). We're still the freeest country in the world, which isn't saying much, and about the only way to reverse the downward spiral is if some country is created/has a revolution and gets something going that's better. Don't know where or how that can happen, though. Maybe Mars