Slashdot Mirror
MATRIX - A Dossier for Every Person in Utah
jxs2151 writes: "According to the Deseret Morning News former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt signed Utah's 2.4 million residents up for a pilot program that gathers dossiers on every single man, woman and child and didn't bother to tell anyone. According to the article MATRIX -- Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange '...cross-references government records from both public and private databases, putting together a dossier on individuals for use by law enforcement.' The state's homeland security specialist dismisses concerns: '...any data gleaned for Utah's participation in MATRIX is information already available to law enforcement.'
The Utah legislature is trying to figure out how to get the state out of the program but the question is how was the Governor able to enroll the -whole state- without anyone knowing?"
in the name of 'protecting freedom'
terrorism wins
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The information is collected by states and forwarded to a database in Florida, where a private company, Seisint Inc., builds and manages the database.
So what's to prevent this company from selling the information to the highest bidder? Glad I don't live in Utah...
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
"the question is how was the Governor able to enroll the -whole state- without anyone knowing?"
Easy, because the data was being collected in the first place. The whole system of legal protection of privacy (i.e. laws that say you're not allowed to use this data for this purpose) breaks down when the trusted custodians of data shits all over the public's trust. The only way to ensure privacy is to not collect the data in the first place. Not that that's ever going to happen.
The sad thing is that no conspiracy is required, this is inevitable and unstoppable because even if the state isnt going to do it ebusiness will.
However now would be a good time to decide how much data can be collected and kept for the entire life of an individual and who can do that collection.
My gut feeling is that each single piece of information needs to be fought over and an ongoing battle between the individual and other parties should begin.
Consider the fact that it would be a trivial if expensive excercise to record every single keystroke you ever type, every purchase you make, every conversation and movement you ever make on camera, every person you know, every email sent, every website visited, every late bill, every parking fine, every day off sick. All at the mercy of datamining software. The ironic thing is that the realy bad people who law enforcement want to catch probably wont be on that database because they will live on the margins of society and use stolen identities.
A record which knows more about you than you do yourself and its all online down at your local police headquarters. Not that the police are necessarily bad guys, trouble is that AdvertisingDotCom will have the same thing as the police have on their database and all they care about is owning your money. I thought slavery had been outlawed but it looks like we are about to bring it back in the name of economic efficiency.
Time to wake up and get on the civil liberty bandwagon.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
It's a big deal because it's a centralized database that enjoys a legal status more powerful than any individual in which it represents. Governemtental bodies, corperations, and others that have authority to make decisions that affect a human life can and will base their decisions upon the information found in centralised dossiers. Your arguments against any inaccuracies or biased representations will carry far less weight, and you will be dealt with by a system where your past history is too much of a liability to ignore regardless of your present intent.
In short: It spits upon the grave of every man who has given their life to protect the freedom and liberty in these United States.
Other than that... No big deal... None at all.
The public will look at the evidence and proclaim the suspect guilty. The jury will look at the evidence and declare the suspect guilty. Then they'll congradulate the FBI on a job well done. All the while, the real culprit sits back and laughs since he stole the supplies from someone who bought them with cash. He didn't show as a suspect at all.
People look at the fouth amendment and assume it's there to keep the authorities from annoying you. They think it's okay for the authorities to run a search as long as the person being searched doesn't know about it. The thing is, the more people the authorities investigate, the more likely they are to turn up false positives. That may work wonders in picking out a scapegoat, but it won't help find the real criminal if the real criminal took even minimal precautions to stay off the list. The fourth amendment is supposed to do more than protect people from annoying searches. It is there to make sure the authorities do their job right.
"we did need to figure out who was responsible for 9/11"
As I said the last time the PATRIOT act came up I dont think it really has a lot to do with 9/11 or preventing another one. 9/11 was more a convenient excuse for the right wing to reimplement domestic spying. Lets spell it, out the Patriot act is designed to reimplement domestic spying as it was prior to the 1970's.
The right wing has been really ticked since the early '70's when constraints were put on FBI and CIA domestic spying activities. We've pretty much forgotten why those constraints were put in place.
In a nutshell domestic spying seems like a great idea if it stays in the box and just focuses on dangerous foreign elements, terrotists, or maybe even dangerous domestic elements. The problem is once the ball gets rolling it never does stay in the box. Its just a matter of time before the people who control it, the people in power, redirect it from just the truly dangerous elements to spying on everyone they consider dangerous, which quickly becomes all their political opponents including people who aren't dangerous, but who are just exercising first amendment rights to disagree by doing things like opposing misguided wars like Vietnam or Iraq or advocating controversial things like equal rights and and end to segregation as was the case in the 60's.
Two classic examples:
J. Edgar Hoover used the FBI to spy on everybody. He acquired dirt on basicly everyone including all politicians. As a result he became largely untouchable. No one would dare suggest replacing him, lest he pull out the file he had on them. Hoover probably had some serious skeletons in his own closet but no one would dare expose them. Hoover controlled the FBI for 48 years and didn't get ousted until God did it when he died. Its no coincidence major constraints were put on the FBI's abuse of domestic spying about the time Hoover died. It was the first time it was possible. 48 years is an unnaturally long and unhealthy time for one person to have unchallenged control of a nations domestic law enforcement, he had it thanks to domestic spying. Hoover in particular abused domestic spying in the case of Martin Luther King. King was not a violent person, not a terrorist. His main danger was exercising his first amendment right to speak out against segregation and the Vietnam war. Hoover made King's life a living hell by abusing domestic spying, for example by discovering extramarital affairs and using them as blackmail, and I wouldn't be suprised if he helped encourage his assasination because he was percieved as a threat by the established powers.
Richard Nixon became extraordinarily paranoid and was really obsessed with his reelection. As a result he abused both the FBI and the CIA to help insure he retained power. Let's remember that Watergate was Nixon abusing his domestic spying powers to spy on his political opposition in an effort to insure they didn't get elected. When a president uses domestic spying to hold power you are headed towards something that isn't democracy. We could very well be heading down the same road today.
Here is a thought experiment. If Jesus were alive today and he preached basicly the same message he did 2000 years ago, and just updated it for the times how would people like Bush and Ashcroft, supposedly devout Christians, recieve him.
If no one listened to him he would just be branded a left wing nut, pacifist, anti war, soft on terrorism, unpatriotic and probably a Democrat. Its a certainty he would have opposed the war on Iraq and all use of force by the U.S. Bush and Ashcroft would not appreciate that viewpoint. He might well be branded a communist since I doubt Jesus would have had anything good to say about investment bankers, stock brokers and the rampant greed that dominates America.
If a lot of people heard Jesus's message and started to follow him, perhaps by engaging in passive resistance and peaceful protest the full weight of the FBI and the patriot act would be
@de_machina
Mormons believe Jesus Christ is the spirit brother of Lucifer. The Bible teaches Lucifer is a fallen angel, and that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Which part of that is contradictory?
Mormons believe they are saved through works; entire books of the Bible (Galatians, Romans) teach against that principle.
Where does it teach against that principle? If I'm not mistaken, we are saved through Faith AND Works. There's even a scripture in the bible that talks about that.
Mormons believe there are many gods. The Bible is quite clear that is wrong.
We only worship one God. The bible is quite clear that we only worship one God. And please explain in further detail what you mean by "believe there are many gods" so I know you know what you're talking about; because it's quite clear that you do not.
Definition of a Christian - One who believes in Christ
Mormons believe in Christ; therefore they are Christians. They also believe in the Bible, so all your arguments are not only innaccurate in the first place, they don't support your point to any extent.
OK, so there's a big database. As many have already pointed out, databases already exist. Trying to stamp out databases of personal information has about as much hope as outlawing pot and sharing music. Waste of time.
We need to shift the focus of the debate from whether or not the database exists to how it is used. I think we need a new Bill of Rights to protect us from inaccurate and misused information in ANY database.
People should be able to sue the hell out of a database provider who distributes inaccurate information, and the responsiblility for accuracy should rest on the provider, not on the poor slob being tracked.
In fact, maybe there OUGHT to be a government sponsored database, because then there would be a specific place to go check for inaccuracies, instead of trying to guess who's got what on you.
And there should be severe restrictions on the uses that can be made of the information. I don't care if the government knows I marched against the war, but I damn well don't expect to get my taxes audited as a result. It's way easier to enforce restrictions on the inappropriate use of information than it is on the simple collection of it.
And anyone using data about me from the database should be liable if they can't prove they're using it on me, not someone else. What if you could sue Macy's for opening a credit account in your name using your credit data if it wasn't really you?
Government doesn't have to be the enemy. This is a place where the power of government could be used to protect us. Of course, you'd have to have a government that cared.
--Hi. I'm in Portland and it's raining. This appears to be a permanent condition.
America: Wake the fuck up! (Score:-1, Troll)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31, @07:23PM (#8146965)
Please... Europe has never been "free", but until recently we here in the old country could aspire to going to america. Now, america is turning into prewar germany, and we've got no where to go. Stop it! before it's too late!
This AC got modded Troll. But I wanted to repost it.
I'll tell a little story. I read, not too long ago, a story written by a daughter of a German migrant. This women's parents left germany during/before the true rise of Hitler.
Now, for those who may have only thought of Nazis as Evil Ones(TM) in a cartoon manner, stop and consider their rise to power. There *was* wide-spread support for the Nazis. They won an election to take power -- Germans SUPPORTED the Nazis. The nation was in a state of euphoria, literally in love with the notion of their own greatness...
This women's parents left because they sensed something basic and unsettling was happening. They new what Germany was becoming and where it could lead.
Near the end of her article she spoke about the USA. Its hubris, its sense of infallibility and selfrighteousness. She wondered if she would have the strength and wisdom to recognize when the USA had reached this tipping point, she wondered if it was now... or would be soon.
As a foriegn observer (Canadian) I just want to tell you that this Matrix stuff is not a surprise. The USA (its government) is heading off on a very strange tangent. Just consider for a moment that the world watched -- with not a little public objection -- the USA invade and occupy two foriegn nations.... whatever you might think justified this act, please consider: The USA is actively invading other nations unprovoked*.
I want people to see what this AC is saying, because I agree. If you think you can sit back and reelect a Republicrat (again, as you have continuously for 100 years) and things will get better you're very wrong.
Let me lay it out, something is very wrong with the USA; its fat, angry, powerfull and violent. Your leaders think they world belongs to them -- and you citizens are sheep -- and we are all going to suffer immensly if something is not done to re-align the USA.
This Matrix stuff is nothing.
* the WTC crashes were criminal acts, the kind of behaviour that requires police, not armies... unless of course you are the kind of proto-fascist-jingoist-American I am worried about, who refuses to consider this reality....(and the article-author sees her country-men becoming)
The distinction you make is absolutely useless and irrelevent. Every single traditionally conservative republican will vote for bush. None of them will vote for a democrat, ever, not even if jesus christ was running as a democrat.
So the biggest spending president in recent history will enjoy the full support of so called conservatives. The president who grew the govt most, intruded on the lives of ordinary citizens the most, the president who gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, who erected steel tarrifs etc will enjoy the support of conservatiives fully.
Why? Two reasons.
1) Bush will not let gays get married and will appoint anti abortion judges.
2) People who call themselves conservatives are not really conservative, they are just republicans who vote any repubican who runs.
War is necrophilia.
People who call themselves conservatives are not really conservative, they are just republicans who vote any repubican who runs.
My point is that there is no Republican candidate for 2004, just a Fascist candidate (and before anyone mods me a troll, do some research on the historical goals and ideals of Fascism).
Pretending that the Emperor is a Republican is like the Democrats running David Duke and claiming that he will represent the interests they are traditionally associated with, just because he's got their logo attached to his campaign.
It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I'm hoping enough Republicans feel like I did in 2000 - when the Democrats ran the husband of Tipper Gore (a huge opponent of free speech) and Lieberman (essentially a crypto-Fascist) - to make a difference.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman