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."
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
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.
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...
... 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?
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.
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
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