Slashdot Mirror
MATRIX Database Schema Altered Due to Privacy Concerns
nusratt writes "Associated Press: 'The Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange combines state vehicle and crime records with commercial databases owned by a private company, Seisint, covering half the U.S. population,' but there were 'questions about the legality of sending state-owned records to Seisint'. The solution? "Each state will maintain its own records . . . Software will search each state's records as necessary.' 'The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.'"
Each state will maintain its own records . . . Software will search each state's records as necessary. The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.
I am a programmer and let me just say that this is a really bad idea. Why? Because it's always a bad idea to design a large system that acts like a server but essentially is only a client.
Each state running their own version of the system, operating independently of the other states, will only ensure that the system could become easily corruptible (both criminally and data corrupted), without anyone higher examining the system for audits, outside of audits applied to the individual systems.
It's actually better to have one system and have multiple clients to the system with downgraded permissions, so that a team can go through and audit the whole system easier.
Now I'm not saying I'm all for Seisint holding the keys. Really the government should run this system themselves and hire the right people for the job, with the adequate level of security clearance to do the work. But diffracting a system into multiple independent systems operating on roughly the same premise, is not going to make it any better. It's going to cause lots of problems and I can foresee the following results without much effort, even:
1. Some states will apply problematic functions to the system.
2. Zero data cohesion for audits over the multiple systems.
3. Easier to corrupt state driven systems than federal ones.
4. Criminal activity changes jurisdiction (ie: no longer federal crime, perhaps?)
5. Bugs cropping up in one state won't be present in another.
6. Fifty times the cost of maintaining the systems; the guys doing this, just multiplied their haul by the number of states involved, instead of getting paid one lump sum to do the fsking job.
7. Social Engineers can break into state-run systems much easier, because they don't have to travel half way across the country to get in.
8. Criminals are now able to falsify criminal information like on that horrible movie The Net!
9. Awareness of a fragmented system is not enough to safeguard privacy.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Another way for my illegitimate government to sidestep legitimate state data laws to invade my privacy.
When will this madness stop? Europe is way ahead of the US when it comes to personl privacy.
Flame on if you wish. I for one am ...
Mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!!
Cue television throwing scene
Karma, We don't need no stinkin' karma!
Who on earth ever said it was going to?
they send them to the government. Well, thanks, that makes me feel a lot more secure about the whole thing. A company might harvest my information for targetted ads or something, but the government? It's not like they could do anything with it. They have nothing to sell, and its not like they have a vested interest in tracking US citizens or eliminating those who disagree with them.
Oh, wait...
The matrix... has you?
Sorry, couldn't resist!
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
'The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.' Arn't there laws about that?
And how exactly are we supposed to know whether they're actually following this new policy or not? They lied to us last time, they could be lying to us again now.
So the data will all be in one centeral database, but each state will have software that will only allow them to access information about people in there state? I wouldnt really call that secure (any more secure then it all ready might be) if the only thing keeping states from viewing other states data is a few pramatters in the application. What they really should do is have each state have then own databases, that way, when one of them gets compromised (cause it will happen) only some data will be taken, not all.
TruePunk | Games
....between sending the records to them and letting them search them at will? The data privacy laws SHOULD be written to make either one of them a no-no. Also, does anyone know which half of the U.S. population they cover? EX
'The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.'"
Yeah, damn those data-privacy-protecting obstacles! They do nothing but aid "the terrorists"!
May we never see th
Read this statement from the article carefully:
The new setup is designed to allow for more frequent updates of the information and get around obstacles in some states' data laws, Zadra said
Yes, that's right, those pesky laws designed to protect your privacy are "obstacles" that are getting in the way.
*sigh*
Post 9-11 there were many ways for the government to cut down on the possibility of terrorist attacks that had nothing to do with restricting the rights of the American people or the majority of legal resident aliens. The government could easily have shut down the borders with the military and ordered the deportation of all Saudi citizens from the country.
But no, the government would rather go after women who are 8 months pregnant, senior citizens and everybody else who is as far away from the profiled group that executed the WTC attack as possible. Because we cannot risk being seen as "racist" in our defense. Well here's some news for those that think that our security shouldn't come before the "rights" of resident aliens.
No other world power in the history of mankind has allowed people from ethnic groups who are openly bitterly hateful and have shown a marked tendency to kill that world power's people, to enter the world power's territory except under special circumstances. Even the Romans kept the Germans at arms' length whenever they could.
It isn't racist to look at someone from a group that has blown up over 3,000 civilians and say "out of my country" if they aren't fellow citizens. One thing the media hasn't been good about reporting is that 9-11 was supposed to have about 20 plans, not 3.
Wring your hands all you want, but would you rather be dead right than alive, wrong?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Information has always had a degree of publicness. Many different types of government records are public, meaning that the public has a right to access them.
Of course in the past this meant digging through stacks of books in a basement somewhere or waiting weeks for someone else to do it for you. This certainly made those records less "public", in that they required more effort to retrieve.
This degree of publicness is rapidly changing with electronically stored info which is very searchable and comparable
This same thing is happening with information that is not public, but available to law enforcement. In the past, law enforcement personell may have had legal access to information, but it was difficult and time consuming to do. Now it is getting easier and faster. It is also getting easy to go on fishing trips.
I see this is tying into the increase in general surveillance - like the Baltimore and Boston camera installations that are going on. Sure what is visible on the street is "public", but just how readily available should it be?
"Europe is way ahead of the US when it comes to personal privacy."
I also used to think so -- until the EU caved to the U.S. and agreed to start regularly sending all of the EU's travel records to the U.S.
Start following the news on things being done by the EU bureaucracy -- sometimes covertly and against the explicit wishes of the citizenry. Read the handwriting on the wall: more and more, the dominance of the U.S. -- militarily, culturally, politically and economically -- is poisoning the rest of what used to be called the "Free World".
The evolution from the former European "Common Market" for easing trade frictions, to an EU with wider powers -- political powers -- is destined to be recognized someday as a grave error and a disaster for human rights.
Getting around a States data Laws is Computer Crime.
Plain and Simple. Engineering the System to circumnavigate the laws, wouldn't that be an Inducement to infringe Data, and somehow violate the New proposed Induce Laws? Or how about The DMCA, or better Yet HiPPA (sp?)
My cat's picked up a Hammer. HEY! Put down that Hammer. Put Down that Hamm...THUNK!
Booga Booga, hand over all the arabs
Seig Heil!
for example:
-- Step #1: Seisint soon will be owned, controlled, and accessible by the European owners of LexisNexis.
-- Step #2: the combination raises the possibility that a huge range of personal information held by LexisNexis could make its way into Matrix
-- Step #3: the system could give law enforcement unprecedented access to details about innocent people
Actually it's all part of the secret government conspiracy behind popups. With such a large tracking database they'll be able to target you wherever you are with the latest cialis or penis enlargement ad.
George Bush really wants America to be the biggest and best, per average male anyways...
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
You may remember a toy that is filled with semi-jelled fluid and sparkley glitters of which when you squeeze it, it escapes your hand.
I would rather have my financial records zip shut than anything else. To watch my bank's 100s of affiliates consolidate my financial activities into a single location of which is then squirted out with no compunction nor adherance to the law to many other places other than your usual uber-credit bureaus.
Submitting your Privacy Act requests, no matter how complete, is like "a lil' Dutch Boy's putting his finger in the dike."
Privacy Act doens't work anymore.
The Matrix really will have you?
The problem stems from terrorism being color-blind and without nationality. We can evict as many Saudis, Mexicans, or Germans as we like and there'll still be someone who wants to hurt others. Look at the Oklahoma bombing case: McVeigh was as white as any "fellow citizen" yet still managed to blow up a building...
There were obvious shortcomings in the way security was handled before 9/11. While I don't think a national identification system will help neither will evicting a nationality or race from western society.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
Just for starters, with your line of thinking, any religious cult after Oklahoma should have been deported or put in a concentration camp.
But to get really serious with what you are saying, let me tell you that not all saudi's are guilty of terrorist activities. In fact, Guess What? Most of them are not.
The "world power" as you call it, should be powerful enough to know better than to go around exterminating arabs. The "world power" should set the example, proving that it won't hold every saudi responsible for the works of, say, twenty?
And just to show you how wrong you are, let me point out one last mistake: even if you don't care in doing the right thing (i.e. giving every citizen the same rights, no matter where they come from), it wouldn't be smart to do what you propose. You see, the arabs aren't just 3 or 4 families you can keep an eye on. That's right, there are thousands right there, in your neighbourhoud. And yes, telling them to leave, or keeping their families outside the country, won't make them happy at all. In fact, you might just set them off. So watch out, cause your "solution" is quite ignorant, unethical, and impractical.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
For homework, your daughter is writing a report on the Middle East, and uses your library card to borrow books on Saudi Arabia.
FBI records: INTEREST IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES
You sell your old car for $7000, and then your motorcycle for $5000.
FBI records: LARGE CASH DEPOSITS
Your wife thinks she might have contracted malaria while overseas, so you look up the symptoms online.
FBI records: INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, RESEARCH INTO BIOLOGICAL AGENTS
One day, someone in law enforcement presses the "COALLATE DATA" button, and you soon find yourself shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, never to see charges, trial, or your family again. And while you're sitting there rotting in prison, millions of your fellow Americans are still repeating the mantra:
You have nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong.
The most harm that could come of this sort of system is the tendency for authorities to embarass you with such broad access to your history. Like the time the cop ran down my driving record after I denied speeding when he pulled me over for the offense. I already looked foolish enough to the passengers in my vehical, but it made me look even worse now that they knew every ticket I had for the past three years. Boy, did he ever put me in my place!
So now they will have access to the websites you surf, the television you watch, the videos you rent, the foods you buy, the property you own, the banks you use, the crimes you've committed, the people you've met, the jobs you've held, the classes you've attended, the doctors you've seen, the diseases you've had, the opionions you've expressed, the sports you play, the religion you follow, the taxes you've paid, and so on, and so on...
I guess the scariest part is when somebody else who meshes up with all the things you do and enjoy, happens to commit some kind of horrible atrocity. Now they run profiles through their database to determine other likely culprits for similar crimes, and lo- your name appears. You couldn't win the lottery, but you've won a free "closer inspection". But if you didn't do anything wrong, don't worry about it. You probably won't even know they were investigating you.
It's easy to see where potential employers may also eventually have access to this information, and that's good too, because you wouldn't want to work with somebody who has a shady history now would you? Obviously, current employers need access to this information as well. Employees can be such a handful! Personal information can help you better manage them to make them more productive.
Needless to say, one could only hope that banks will also be in line to have a shot at your personal info, because they need to know the spending habits of their clients in order to detect fraud. It's for your protection.
Eventually many responsible corperations will have some degree of access to this information to better improve the comfort and security of their clients and associates. It will bring greater stability and certainty to the markets.
And of course these records will always be available to local, state, and federal law enforcement for obvious beneficial reasons. It's much more effecient to investigators if they don't actually have to run around to investigate who, what, when, where, why, and how on a person's history. You can immediately establish links and let the obvious story fall into place. It's not as if you'll be denied a jury trial if it's a major offense.
No... Only good can come of this so called "invasion of privacy" and the sooner it starts, the better.
Note: Even when I play devil's advocate, this kind of thinking still scares the shit out of me, though I have no criminal history. Now can someone explain why that is?
It is if you make your decisions about whether they're in the group based on their appearance! The vast majority of people of any race are not terrorists.
If you can tell, simply by looking, whether a person is a terrorist, you have a unique and valuable talent. The FBI would love to talk to you!
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Just as the EU has caved to USA demands for
information on travelers from (and within)
Europe, every country that has visa-less entry
to the USA will have biometric passports, AND
information on those travelers made available
to the US authorities.
If you never travel outside Canada, never do
any business with USA companies, don't use
any credit cards, have no criminal record (at
all) then, and only then, might you NOT be in
the MATRIX.
The MATRIX has you, too!
If the government can routinely blow 10's of billions of dollars on a war that wasn't justified, it can fork over a little extra to make sure the citizens are protected from unnessary, centralized, control over massive amounts of data on U.S. Citizens. We already KNOW ahat happens when so much data is centralized under the control of one entity- just ask almost anyone who has had their identity stolen.
Even having said all this, I think that this MATRIX idea is a waste of money. Nobody knows what a "terrorist" looks like in terms of their spending habits. It's entirely possible that there is no discernible difference. There is plenty of room, however, to flag false positives, as has already been shown with the fed's "no fly" list. Because some of the stuff I've heard is really rather rediculous, I have no inclination to trust the fed with any more data on U.S. citizens than it had before 9/11.
A few weeks ago I attended the Fifth HOPE conferenece in New York City. While I was there, I saw Steven Rambam, a private investigator and former federal agent, give a presentation entitled "Privacy: It Ain't What It Used to Be." A better title would have been "Privacy is Already Dead."
He started out by asking if anybody in the room (about 200+ tin-foil-hat wearing hackers) had ever heard of Seisent. Not a single hand went up, and he seemed to be genuinely suprised and disturbed by this.
He made a very good point repeatedly throughout his presentation: we shouldn't be worried because Government has this data on us; no, we should be terrified because private corporations that don't even answer to the government have this data. And it's not just limited to name, address and telephone number: criminal records, addresses of residence, education, employers, telephone calls, magazine subscriptions, travel records, television viewing habits (if you have cable), internet downloads, gun ownership and voting records. Yes voting records - they know if you voted and what party you registered under.
Suffice to say, these guys should be the household name, not the RIAA. Why does the media focus on the MPAA et al and their paltry lawsuits and not these guys?!?
So I changed my sig to read "What is Seisint?" and I tell everyone I know about them.
Some have responded to me with ambivalence. "What's the big deal?" "Meh, they have the data, there's nothing we can do about it." I'm not sure how to respond to people like that except with "the dumber you are the happier you are" or something.
What could they do with that data? Use your imagination, stupid.
Rambam finished by giving a live demonstration of a smaller database of individual information that he owns (derived mostly public records). He demonstrated how quickly you could compile information on any random person with just their SSN - as it turned out, the "victim" he took from the audience was already a real victim of identity theft. The query took less that 10 seconds. It was pretty amazing / disturbing.
During the Q&A portion of the presentation, several audience members asked what they could do to "get out" of the database. Rambam replied that there was nothing we could do: the data was now the property of this one private company - even the data that was collected from State governments (Aside from being one of the egregiou privacy invasions in human history, it was also one of the most gernerous corporate subsidizations ever).
Rambam did say one thing we could do: "Vote, vote, vote." Private corporations have too many protections and powers compared to individuals, and Government is the only way to change that.
The final questioner for the session had a very +5 Insightful comment on what everyone in the audience should do just in case the voting didn't work out:
"Buy, and learn how to use, a rifle."
The audience response to this comment was, of course, thunderous applause.
But lets forget that and go with your theory, shall we? Any ethnic group from which hateful mass murderers have come from must leave now. Lets see...
-
Arabs, as you noted, are already out.
-
Hispanics include some drug dealers who are willing to kill innocent civilians; goodbye
-
Asians, well you guys bombed Pearl Harbor. Sorry.
-
Blacks, some black supremest groups (Black Panthers, Nation of Islam) have come out of you guys.
-
Caucasians, well we seem to be in the clear. Oh wait, I forgot about Tim McVeigh and friends, Ted Kaczynski, Manson, Hinckly, Neo-Nazis, PETA, the KKK, Jefferey Dalmer, those Columbine kids, Hannibal Lector (ok, he's not real), guys flying Confederate flags, Oswald, Howard Dean (you know he's thinking it)... Uh, guess we had better find a new home fast.
As for the rest of you, I'm sure I can find someone of your ethnicity who hated America. So you might as well go ahead and leave as well.Well, the US is now uninhabited and thus safe from terrorism. But maybe we should rethink your plan.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
M ultistate
A nti
T error
R ????
I nformation
e X change
Do those multistates also have problem with their acronym generation capabilities?
Are those acronyms generated by pimply-faced 14-year-old who want to look cool?
Has ATR become a standard abbreviation for antiterror these days?
Questions over questions, and I doubt the database will be of help here.
It would take a constant ready force of 120000+ troops to guard the US borders with Mexico and Canada, with troops spaced 100 M apart.
Multiply that times 3 because troops can only guard 80 hours or so a week to be effective. And multiply by 3 again to include officers, support & logistics personnel.
So it would take a constant standing force of nearly 1 million to "close the US borders." That's a huge chunk of our military, and a huge chunk of change per day. Completely impractical.
Order the deportation of all Saudi Citizens? Have you considered that Saudi Arabia is one of our closest allies in the middle east? Not to mention a very important source of oil? Put aside PC thought for a second, and consider the diplomatic and geopolitical ramifications of villainizing that people? That people, the vast majority of whom have not attacked America? Why not just send them an open letter and ask them to join Al Qaeda and to stop selling us oil?
As for your analogy with the other world powers in history, let me ask you something about them. Where are they? Where is their power now? If we walk in their path, we will reach the same destination they did. We are not Romans, we are not Germans, we are Americans. We ought to blaze our own trails, ahdering to the principals upon which this nation was founded.
Yes it is racist to look at someone from a particular race/nationality and judge them by their group identity. The cornerstone of a free society is the recognition of individual identity and individual rights. Every day in America, 3,000 people die from a combination of tobacco, alcohol, and medical malpractice. That's 9/11 everyday. Every single day, 3,000 avoidable deaths occur. We do not take away individual liberty because of them. We do not give up the principle of freedom because of it. Why then, should we compromise our principals for a singular incident where 3,000 people died?
Give me Liberty or give me death.
Live free or die. Better to be dead right, than alive wrong, in chains, bowing the knee. And that is the fate that awaits everyone who gives up their liberty and rights for security. They will bow the knee, they will see lady liberty bow the knee, and the blood of all those who have fought for the principals of our nation, will have been shed in vain.
Think for yourself, destroy your television.
US citizen.
I'll be leaving the US soon, and I don't expect I will want to come
back for a long time, because the sad truth is, the game in the
US is not about "security" or "safety". It's about consolidation of power.
Judging a large group of people by the actions of a tiny minority is stupid.
Can I conclude from recent events in Iraq that all USians are torturers?
No, I can't, because most people in the US had nothing to do with the actions of those soldiers. By the same token, the vast majority of Saudis had nothing to do with the attacks on your country and have nothing to do with terrorism.
I couldn't resist either.
Actually, no, the FBI would NOT like to talk him if he really COULD identify terrorists by appearance.
That would really screw up the FBI's ability to ignore threats long enough for them to actualize.
Just ask Sibel Edmonds.
I mean, if the FBI were actually EFFECTIVE, their budget might be cut.
And that would hurt somebody's career and GS rating.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
This does remind me of a fun point.
We used to refer to "Saddam's rape and torture chambers" when he was running them.
So why aren't we referring to "Bush's rape and torture chambers"?
Of course, the right would claim that Saddam personally ordered these actions while Bush did not. Leaving aside the DOJ torture memos which indicate otherwise, it's still valid to claim that the person responsible for the actions is the person who oversees them. The buck stops at the White House - not some hillbillies from West Virginia (not that I believe it stopped anyway close to them in any event - clearly it went right up to at least Steven Cambone and Donald Rumsfeld).
I see today both The New York Times and the Washington Post are proclaiming the Army's just released report on the abuses as an "obvious whitewash".
Duh!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The Native American nations wish to collectively thank you, and to add that they have never hated America, at least as it was before all you new guys moved in. All hateful mass murderers among the NAN would like to point out that they were directing their "innate ethnic exuberance" against people who were not real Americans at all, mostly Europeans within a mere generation or three. They will however agree to leave, just so we send them back to their homeland.
Jeffery Dalmer would also like to say, (speaking "ex infernalis" of course), that he has never hated America, at least before he got caught, although there were a few parts of it he needed extra mayonaise for.
Who is John Cabal?
Wow the mods were finally right; that was insightful.
(If they are a little more hip, you might want to end with something like,"Hello, Mr. [their last name here], we've been waiting for you!" in your best Agent Smith voice.)
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Chalk all this up to political correctness. Certain groups make damn sure that no one ever gets offended from now on otherwise someone might make someone else cry. It's happening in schools with certain games not being allowed anymore because they don't want kids being "left out" or whatever and it's happening clear up to the real life level of going after everyone who could be targeting our country instead of those people who we know could be. The gay lifestyle is being celebrated because certain groups want to make sure that no one is judged and that nothing is ever wrong anymore; everything is "okay" now. PC is affecting everyday life and it's going to kill the country.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Of course, you can still bring 2 cigarette lighters and 4 books of matches on planes. Mix them together and you could blow out a window or something on an airplane. Dangerous stuff, but the government hasn't cracked down. Idiots.
Yes, why aren't we referring to Abu Ghraib as "Bush's rape and torture chambers"?
Is it because Saddam's torture involved mutilating people with electric drills and cutting out their tongues, while the torture at Abu Ghraib involved having people wear underwear on their heads, pile naked on top of one another, and have unmuzzled dogs bark (but not bite) them? Is it because Abu Ghraib involved dozens of victims while Saddam's regime killed hundreds of thousands (yes, killed them, as in dead forever, not made them disrobe)?
Make no mistake about it, what happened at Abu Ghraib was terrible. We, our military, and our politicians should never have allowed it; now that we know about it, we should take every step to make sure it never happens again. But it cannot be compared in quality or in scale to what Saddam did, not by a long shot. Making such a comparison might charitably be called intellectually dishonest--I call it idiotic.
Except for the fact that we _know_ the ones running this system are human, and they _will_ make mistakes. And given a government with the position that suspected terrorists, even if they happen to be citizens, are to be held in violation of their civil rights, with no access to legal counsel, and that it's okay to torture/kill them to find out what they may know, that inevitably, significant numbers of innocent citizens will be imprisoned/tortured/killed because of the mistakes of the persons acting on the data from this system.
Furthermore, this scenario ignores persons that may actually have a semi-seditious nature to their actions, members of various activist groups, such as environmentalists, anti-globalization protestors, 2nd amendment advocates, and the like. It also ignores the potential for blatant abuse of this system by those that make use of it.
Everything you mentioned is commonplace, meaning thousands and millions of people do those things everyday. Do you really think the FBI will automatically assume 10% of the US population is planning a terrorist attack?
Well, if they want to be as thorough as their mandate suggests, yes, they will. Invariably, mistakes will be made, innocents hurt, and the people (read: you) will shrug their shoulders thinking, "they must have done something," never realizing that the situation they're in is entirely created by themselves.
Wandering a bit off topic, I'd just like to say that the absolute best way to deal with terrorism is to attack the roots of the problem, and stop people from being quite so pissed off. The biggest problems facing our society aren't drugs, or terrorism, or sex, or assault weapons; it's the social movements of ignorance and "dude, who cares?" attitudes. These two do more damage to everybody than the other four combined, and removing the latter tends to make the former self-correcting problems.
The truth of the matter is that this is an excellent tool for law enforcement agencies to work together, period.
The shit hits the fan when something happens and some other agency held the key evidence, or information that ultimately could have saved lives. What happens 6-9 monthes later after the person(s)/group gets caught?
The puzzle gets put together, the media gets a piece of it and the public is screaming that their tax dollars are being wasted on antiquated systems that can't talk to one-another in an age when we have the technology to over-come such situations.
In an effort to respond to the publics outcry the agencies work to come up with a solution, which includes zig-zagging through countless red-tape and legislation.
The agencies now have the know-how, the technology and the money to begin the process of piecing the system together, too bad it has been far too long and the public (mainly the media) has moved on to other things that make money("news").
Now it is time to focus on the other aspect of this system, and the entire process gets put under a microscope, the government is scrutinized for "wasting" tax dollars (remember when we were wasting money on antiquated systems?) on a system that is "invading our privacy" ( privacy is ultimately defined by some agency like the ACLU).
I say GET REAL, if the system fails because of some inane P2P like technology, which we all know that shit doesnt work, except for sharing music, at least we are taking a step in the right direction.
We need systems that talk to one-another and information needs to be disseminated to the people/agencies who need it. The govenment is working with law enforcement agencies in an effort to empower agencies and make our country safer.
Each and every state down to the smallest municpality needs to dedicate resources to things such as the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative and begin to close the gap of lost information. What the hell are we afraid of? hmmm, maybe the criminals will get caught? Good. oh, "but this information is going to get in the wrong hands..." is that all you got?
It is so funny how people get about their "personal" information, sorry to tell you folks, but most of the "personal" information out there is more than likely readily available through some open records law.
What the hell are you afraid of? getting caught?
Anybody remember that Max Headroom episode? Centralised systems can lead to all sorts of scary situations. Seems to me that the most benefit that can be accrued from this type of system accrues to those in a position to abuse it.
i'm sure the black hats will be all over this in a snap...
but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."
The Failure to Speak Up Against the Nazis - Martin Niemoeller
Maybe you guys in the US need to start speaking out, as your government seems to be taking away your rights in the same manner. Eventually you won't have any left.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
he hasn't aged well.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
In order to have an America free of human violence, the continent must be void of human life period.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I guess we've come to accept that every government, no matter how promising, will bite the dust and control every aspect of every citizen's life, till eventually those one or two saviors rise up and realize that, if nothing else, the government was right about one thing: Eventually you're going to have to kill someone to gain your freedom. ::Gives in and puts on a tinfoil hat::
I guess they were right.
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
Your logic is both correct and short-sighted at the same time. Yes, you can't pinpoint a "terrorist" on the basis of spending alone - just because I walk into a hardware store and buy a box cutter doesn't mean I am about to hijack the next plane I get onto. However, with sufficient data, a "terrorist" _can_ be distinguished from normal people - organisations across the globe have been doing it for years. However, when this information is fragmented, it really is useless.
A useful analogy is that in marketing. You may collect statistics saying that 60% of people that visit a website go to buy box cutters. You may also collect statistics saying that 50% of your visitors use Firefox under Linux. But unless you can tie those two bits of information together (via IP address, etc.) you won't know if mainly Linux users like box cutters or not. Collecting data for no reason is a problem - it's a waste of resources and a waste of time.
I agree, there is a huge issue of having one huge data repository for everyones details. I am also no huge fan of the "war on terror" or anything of that nature. However, I do subscribe to the logic of that if you are going to do something, do it right. It's your money they're wasting, not mine - I don't have to put up with your (often wacky) governments ways. Either they spend a few million dollars on a system which doesn't work, is a security problem and doesn't provide any valuable data, or they spend a few million dollars on something that at least works. Hey - they're a government and are going to waste the money anyway - may as well push for something that works!
On top of all this, having 50 smaller targets is more of a risk than 1 central one. Sure, you may bear the brunt of 50x the attacks on that one site - but at least you are only looking in one place! Plus, more sites means better chance (or worse, depending on how you look at it) of one site being unpatched or whatever. I certainly know which site I'd rather be administering and trusting with my private data!
[root@GRIFFIN root]# rpm -e coffee-1.22.3-1a.i386.rpm
error: removing these packages would break dependencies: