Slashdot Mirror
Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act Introduced
SewersOfRivendell writes "Quote from http://boingboing.net/: 'EFF, EPIC, CDT, ACLU and Free Congress have drafted a bill that's been introduced by Senator Wyden today, for a new law called "The Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act." This is a hell of a law. It finds that various species of spooks are making avid use of commercial and governmental databases, merging them and aggregating them, without transparency, accountability, or any real understanding of the danger to civil liberties involved in this practice. Accordingly, it requires any Fed agency using non-Fed databases to cut it out and make a full report to Congress on who they're buying database and database-services from, what they're doing to preserve privacy, why they're doing what they're doing, and whether they actually have a realistic chance of catching any bad guys. And it calls into account Feds who abuse their authority and limits the kind of doomsday hypotheticals that can be used to justify such abuse.' PDF draft of the bill here."
I am looking at Senator Ron Wyden's website right now and I don't see anything mentioning this possible bill. Hmmmm. Does anyone have a link to a .gov version of this so called bill?
Unique signatures are rare.
This will protect against one of the most effective, obvious and yet least legislated and obvious data harvesting technique of all: triangulation. Even though in general only certain data columns from detailed personal information databases is available, one can combine and merge the data from multiple such subsets of databases to reformulate the data in a coherent whole. For example:
There is a medical database, an edited down version of which is available, giving just gender, date of birth, a list of medical defects, and a list of medical injuries (with the remainder omitted for privacy). Then there is also the employment database of the company you work at, an edited version of which is available, giving name, gender, date of birth and phone number. If you were a manager at this company you could use the two databases together, using the "gender" and "date of birth" fields to merge the two. This data could then be used, say, leaked to insurance or marketing companies, or you could even use it yourself for other nefarious purposes.
Thus, it is possible to obtain a good deal of data even from just small portions if one uses a sufficiently large number of different databases. Someone did a study on this, but right now I can't find the link. I'll be greatful to anyone who replies to this comment with it. This Act can only be a good thing.
Bash script for FP whores
Question is, how likely is it that it will pass or even come up for a vote?
Where I work, our job is to collect *public* information in government databases. We make it possible so people can research a property in just a minutes, rather than a few hours.
According to the ACLU, because I'm consolidating public information, I'm a national security threat. I should also be forced to submit to even more beaurocratic loopholes to get data that's already public, or be stopped from accessing to much public data to begin with. And I thought the ACLU was all about personal freedom and open governments
My mistake, this bill only applies to the federal government, not for average private citizens like me.
However, because Slashdotters never like to admit total defeat, I'd like to pose the question. Do you think the the ACLU is still opposed to private citizens like me consolidating so many public government databases about individual people and properties?
"Do Not Recall" pretty much sums up the last few years of business practice in the US.
There was a really good editorial on this in my local newspaper last week. This phrase seems to have replaced "pleading the 5th", and outright lying in court. It is funny how Enron, Worldcomm and a few other executives, working with outside specialists helped produced hundreds of shell companies and transferred money around for years to avoid stating loses and paying taxes but when confronted about specifics, they seemed to claim "I don't recall". Funny that they had no problem remembering to swap the funds around at tax time and earnings reporting time but suddenly it is all a blank. Maybe the CDC, AMA, or FDC should fund a study to see what happens to the memory of a perfectly functioning executive when they come under investigation. I wonder if any of these "DO NOT RECALL" statements were on thier resume when they applied for the $500 million jobs.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
There is only one thing that secures my freedoms, rights and privacy: My .45
.45.
.45 won't protect your "freedoms, rights, or privacy" if the government decides otherwise, even if the entire population were behind you. The second amendment has been gutted. Its present interpretation is nowhere near the spirit your forefathers intended.
I find it highly ironic that you would cling to such a false sense of security, particularly considering your opening statement:
America of 2003 is a far far cry from America of 1776.
The Second Amendment (The right to bear arms one that you reference) was added during a time when the most sophisticated weapons the US military sported were little more than muskets with bayonnettes. The second amendment was intented to ensure that the citizenry was guaranteed access to the exact same firepower and weapons as the military, thus ensuring that should the government ever need to be overthrown, the citizens would win. Same weapons * more people = ensured victory.
However, over the years, the government has slowly castrated the second amendment, insidiously changing its interpretation to guarantee ownership of little more than peashooters, while reserving the real hardware for the "good guys" (i.e., the military). Nowadays, citizens are not allowed to own anywhere near the same firepower as the military.
In an all-out battle of every citizen against the entire military, the military would wipe their collective asses with your piddly little
Combine this with the fact that for any kind of uprising to last more than a few hours, you'd require the support of a large percentage of the population, meaning you'd need to convince the masses that the government has crossed a line, and is finally corrupt enough to warrant violent resistance.
The people at Waco felt they were resisting tyranny. So did the people at Ruby Ridge. And the government crushed both of those "problems."
So in summary, I guess what I'm saying is, your
But hey, if it gives you a warm, fuzzy false sense of security, then who am I to rain on your parade.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.