Dutch to Open Electronic Files on Children

Del writes "The Dutch government plans to open an electronic file on every child at birth as a tool to spot and protect the troubled kids of the future. All citizens will be tracked from cradle to grave in a single database - including health, education, family and police records."

Comments

I wish this was a joke

[Bananatree3]

As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file. But organizations can raise "red flags" in the dossier to caution other agencies about problems

And so what if one malicious worker has exclusive rights to view several hundred children? It doesn't matter if they have access to the whole database or not, even a "small pecentage" could be several hundred or thousand children. This is a pedaphile's ultimate dream.

The intention is to protect troubled children, Brouwer said. Until now, schools and police have been unable to communicate with each other about truancy records and criminality, which are often linked. "Child protection services will say, 'Hey, there's a warning flag from the police. There's another one from school. There's another one from the doctor," Brouwer said. "Something must be going on and it's time to call the parents in for a meeting."

And how long exactly will these records be kept? Also, this would be a good way to usher in a country-wide database of this sortfor every citizen. Start with the children, saying its "for the good of the kids", and then slowly introduce a more inclusive database, which would go under some other guise. It would seem that a database of children "for their safety" might be easier to pull of then a citizenry-wide database at first.

Every child will get a Citizens Service Number, making it easier to keep track of children with problems even when their families move.

This could have good uses, and assuming it was used exactly for the intent stated, this would be an excellent service. BUT, more often then not, these kinds of things get abused in some form or another. In every government there is some malicious back-room government worker who goes below the radar. These kinds of things get abused, and when it is a child at stake, the risks are even higher.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[WindBourne]

I agree with you. While I suspect thtat this has good intentions, this is the same thing as the patriot act or even gestapo. Basically, it allows a small group in the gov. to control the information about an individual. All somebody has to do is think about how well credit cards are protected (2 major CC processing companies broken into in under 4 years with literally 10 million CCs exposed), or think in terms of what is happening here in America WRT to tieing SSN, drivers license, federal ID, and PATRIOT ACT.

We won WWII, but yet, much of what we fought against, seems like it is coming into being anyways.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[wllf]

The Dutch government has come under attack from the public because of some very nasty incidents during the last couple of years.

There were cases, highly profiled in the media, where children were abused and even murdered. In hindsite there were clues, but because the parents had moved a couple of times no-one had the whole picture. Child protection did not have information from there sister organizations from other cities, reports from police about the parents which would have provided vital clues about the home situation, were not available.

In general everytime something was going on with the children the people who had to judge the situation had to start from scratch.

What the government now proposes is under pressure from the public to do something and I think it is a good thing.

As much as slashdot loves the odd conspiracy theory left and right and as much as I distrust the Dutch government, I believe this is well intended. But it needs to be well thought out because the possibility of abuse is certainly there.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[rwhamann]

This could have good uses, and assuming it was used exactly for the intent stated, this would be an excellent service. BUT, more often then not, these kinds of things get abused in some form or another. This reminds me of the famous question so often asked of us conservatives: Will you like the goverment to have the powers of the Patriot Act when Hillray Clinton is the President? How can we measure the value of what it prevents against what it will allow? I'm a firm believer that it's better for a hundred guilty to go free rather than one innocent be jailed. Another concern: will parents have access to this database? How much access?

Re:I wish this was a joke

[footissimo]

I am sure 'malicious workers' already have rights of access to files of vulnerable children. Putting everything in one database could make it easier to secure and to track who has access to such files (rather than on multiple smaller local authority databases).

Re:I wish this was a joke

[AftanGustur]

As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file. But organizations can raise "red flags" in the dossier to caution other agencies about problems Even if that may solve some problems, it creates others realy serious. What this means is both that some grumpy social worker, on bad day, can flag a kid for life, and there is no way for anyone to put a judgement on the social workers decision. Also, gifted children often have behavioral problerms which can not be easily diagnosed for what they are.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[DenDave]

It is astounding how much this current neo-con government in Holland is gettign away with! First ISP data interception and retention, then convicting people by withholding dna evidence! And now they want to gestapize the social security! And this in a country which used to be vehement about civil rights!!!

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Associate]

Was that before or after they started the slave trade?
I'm sorry. That was a low blow.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[jcr]

While I suspect that this has good intentions

I think you can put that suspicion to rest.

-jcr

Re:I wish this was a joke

[koekepeer]

and this is not different from the situation as it is now. i personally know some people who work with troubled kids/families, and believe me, they try all they can to make very careful decisions.

negligence of one person can still exist. but in this system, at least all (independent) opinions are collected, which should have a neutralising influence. any professional social worker will look at a case as unbiased as possible. you must realise that the clients often have become very proficient at "fooling" social workers... in this case such a "red flag" could help in the line of questioning at the intake of a client in a new region.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[E8086]

that could lead to profiling and profiling is wrong

So they can arrest the parents or take the kids away because in a semi-similar situation the kids were much abused or killed.

So when one abused kid who was charged with something at some time grows up and has kids and severly injurs or kills their kid, then some overzealious young gov't worker brown nosing for a promotion or raise or corner office uses that limited data to create a profile everyone who had jeuvinile charges thrown at them when they were a kid is now a suspect for possible child abuse.
I only said charge, not conviction and didn't say what it was for. It could be that some kid broke a neighbor's window while playing baseball when he was 9 and instead of accepting compensation from the kids parents, the kid-hating neighbor gets their DA friend to bring the kid up on charges to teach him a lesson and/or make an example for the rest of the neighborhood kids. Since that system is probably going to record everything, even something pointless like that during childhood can make them a future suspect. In the US you don't have to report legal charges, only convictions and most jeuvinile records are sealed when the person turns 18 and can be petitioned to be destroyed/removed from the permanant record. Yes, that's an extreme example, but possible that something that happened to you many years ago can put you at risk because someone 100yrs before did something similar and then did something worse. And no one caught it because not all law enforcement depts have access to all of it.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[_Ash_]

As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file. But organizations can raise "red flags" in the dossier to caution other agencies about problems

And so what if one malicious worker has exclusive rights to view several hundred children? It doesn't matter if they have access to the whole database or not, even a "small pecentage" could be several hundred or thousand children. This is a pedaphile's ultimate dream.

I'm sorry, but what has this do with pedophiles? I can not see how this system would be of any interest to them. Even if there is information stored about a child, personal contact is something completely different. Furthermore: as far as I can see no one has exclusive rights to the information.

Sure:

Re:I wish this was a joke

[pAnkRat]

AFAIK:
no access to all contents of the file does not mean that one person can only view a subset of the records, but only a subset of the information per reccord.

The dutch have allways been quiet complicated about personal data.
Many things are allready kept electronicaly, but even for authorities it is often complicated to get the data.
My sisters works at the national healthcare agency (?), she told me some horror stories about it.

(disclaimer: I'm from I Holland but live in germany now)
another example:
I my passport is my name and birthdate,but not my address.

This is because someone looking into my passport should know who I am, but it is none of his business to know where I live.
(For me this is complicated, becaus in germany, every passport contains the address, so german authorities often give me a hard time because I cannot provide them with my offcial address)

So I think it was intended that people accessing the database can see if I have a criminal reccord, but not my illness,
(exclusive-) or the other way arround.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Jedi Alec]

oi, watch it, or we'll take 'm all right back to where we found 'm!

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Master of Transhuman]

"Well intentions" do not excuse either incompetence or malice.

If the Dutch are doing this for the reasons you stated - i.e., preventing the abuse of childen because of incompetence in their bureacracy - there are obviously many other ways to eliminate that incompetence rather than doing a cradle-to-grave surveillance of people.

The parents moved, so they can't find out they had trouble with kids before? Gimme a fucking break. If you can find out about it afterwards, you can find out about it beforehand. This is just the usual CYA bullshit the authorities always trot out to explain incompetence and justify more repression.

Then malice comes in. This is merely an excuse for the law enforcement establishment and the politicians - which is the SAME group of scumbags in EVERY country, regardless of political setup - to build up their surveillance of people, so they can clamp down on "undesireables" - i.e., anybody they don't like or who doesn't like them.

Period. That simple. Anybody who supports this sort of thing is a moron or a malicious asshole - probably both.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[hcdejong]

It is astounding how much this current neo-con government in Holland is gettign away with!

Yeah, let's blame the neo-cons for everything!
1. ISP data interception and retention:
These are European proposals, not yet local law.

2. convicting people by withholding dna evidence:
That case stems from a murder committed in 2000, when a different cabinet was in place.

Not that these things don't worry us; far from it. There's quite a shitstorm going on over the murder trial, and the last word about this new children's database hasn't been said yet either. Hell, the proposal is one day old, discussion has just begun.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[morie]

They cannot view the complete contents of one record, only the part that they could see already.

What they can do is raise a flag, and somebody else who is looking at a different protion of the record is alerted to pay attention.

This can be abused, but not in the way you describe.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Xarius]

Also, gifted children often have behavioral problerms which can not be easily diagnosed for what they are.

Who cares if they are gifted or not? A behavioural problem is a behavioural problem, and no-one cares how talented an artist or accurate a programmer the kid is, if he's a trouble maker or not is the issue at hand here.

There shouldn't be special exceptions for geniuses and retards, trouble is trouble.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Ihlosi]

Who cares if they are gifted or not?

People who aren't morons.

G&T kids are likely to become "troublemakers" because the normal education system does not offer enough challenges.

Teachers usually do not like these kids and start harassing them as soon as it starts to show that the kid is actually smarter than the teacher. (Teachers cannot stand anyone appearing smarter than they are in class, even if the appearance is true).
Their classmates do not like these kids because they usually get better grade with much, much less effort. And the classmates are even better at harassing than the teacher.
All the harassment does lead to trouble eventually (unless the G&T kid is especially good at hiding his abilites or has an ungodly tolerance to harassment). And guess which side the teacher will side with if there's trouble between a normal kid and the smartass G&T "troublemaker" ? Bingo.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[DarKry]

Whats the hostname of this database agian??? Maybe the sa account doesn;t have a password ;)

Re:I wish this was a joke

[molotov02]

Although I quite agree that this might have some huge possibilities for abuse, it helps save children.
Here in the Netherlands, every year there are a few high profile cases where children are extremely abused and/or killed. Usually, afterwards it became know that quite a lot of social services were involved into the family, but didn't communicate with each other or that records simply 'vanished' because the family moved. in result; children die because social services are hugely incompetent.
This system now automates the 'speaking to each other' part of the whole equation.
FYI; in the province of Utrecht, this system has already been tested for a few months, with excellent results.
I do completely agree this could be seen as a dangerous law, so far it actually does what it's meant to do; protect abused children.
(To tell the truth; we're surprised the government actually does something like this right)

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

From TFA (Summary):
a tool to spot and protect the troubled kids of the future. All citizens will be tracked from cradle to grave in a single database

You make good points which I agree with, though, the important keywords are "from cradle to grave". Is this about protecting the kids? Don't think so. One day they'll be all grown up and I for one wouldn't want to make their future an Orwellian 1984. Hell, we don't want to be monitored so why would our kids want to be?

Re:I wish this was a joke

[remmelt]

Second post and already Godwin's law?


I do agree with you though. This is horrible from a security point of view, because no matter how well this gets protected, there will be failures, human or technical.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Riktov]

And so what if one malicious worker has exclusive rights to view several hundred children? It doesn't matter if they have access to the whole database or not, even a "small pecentage" could be several hundred or thousand children. This is a pedaphile's ultimate dream.

The hypothetical pedophile has always been able to do that. The number of records available to any one person or any number of people has always been limited to that one database, and yes, it probably does number in the hundreds. So what?

They're creating a unified database whose purpose is to commonly identify children whose records are currently in different databases in different agencies and districts. People won't have access to any more records than before, they will have access to more information in each record.

And how long exactly will these records be kept? Also, this would be a good way to usher in a country-wide database of this sortfor every citizen. Start with the children, saying its "for the good of the kids", and then slowly introduce a more inclusive database, which would go under some other guise. It would seem that a database of children "for their safety" might be easier to pull of then a citizenry-wide database at first.

It says so right in the story description: cradle to grave.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Eivind]

That's not what they mean when they say "no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file"

What they mean is that for example, the school-district will only be allowed to access the school-relevant part of the file on a certain student. The police only the police-relevant part and so on.

The "red flags" are an exception to this. Meaning that even though the school-district can not read your criminal record or whatever else info is on a child in the police-part of the file, they *can* see that the police has raised a red flag about the child.

Secondly, allow me to confront me on the popular American bullshit you spout, presumably without even thinking about it. When a child is at stake, the risks are *not* automatically "even higher". Children are human beings, like the rest of us no more, and no less worth.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Teun]

So they can arrest the parents or take the kids away because in a semi-similar situation the kids were much abused or killed.

Yes this is a form of profiling.

But recent experience shows that the present Dutch systems are too fragmented to protect children that are in trouble.
There are many different groups keeping an eye on them but the overview has been missing.

Especially NOW the overzealous social worker could cause harm, with the proposed new system there would not be a single person or institution dealing with the problem.

The Dutch proposal is not "till the grave", but only for the juvenile years.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[WindBourne]

Yeah, we have the same problem here in America. And yet, I fear that it becomes a cae of save a few today, to sacrafice 1000x more in the future.

Personally, I would prefer to see cooperation at a human level, and not at the DB level.

If the dutch are able to get this to take, I suspect that in about 9 months, we will suddenly the top level republicans make a big deal of some child in the same situation (never mind that this pres. has been notorous for doing nothing when he was a gov.). Then, we will see the announcement that the DOD has created a wonderful DB that can be used for just a thing. Of course, it will be applied to those under 18, as it relates to juviniles only. Basically, it will be sold as "think of the children", and yet, the DB will extend for the life the person.

In doing it this way, they will have an easy approach to solving the problem of who is on what communication channel in real-time using today( or any hardware in the next 10 years). That is, if an entitiy is listening in on the phones and internet, at say OC-256 or OC-768 level, It is impossible to determine in real-time exactly which conversation matches up with which person. Basically, the solution space is intangible.

But if you have the mapping of a person to a phone number to a packet via a corporate DB (opened by the patriot act), then you have a PNS (person naming server). Basically, the solution space of this problem is no longer intangible. Now, you can in real time, with some specialized hardware, determine who everybody is, and not just the 1000 lines that you are legal to tap. With the patriot act, it allows any agent (NSA, CIA, NRO, DOD, DIA, DOJ/FBI, SS, and even DOR (tax agent) ) to tap any lines iff they are persuing a terrorists. Well, hey, I got a lead from this guy on the corner. He tells me that Carlos the Jackel is active. But that is all he could tell me.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Rits]

it's better for a hundred guilty to go free rather than one innocent be jailed.

You also prefer a hundred children to get abused or killed, to prevent one parent from getting problems with the authorities when nothing is wrong?

Re:I wish this was a joke

[salesgeek]

I agree with you. While I suspect thtat this has good intentions, this is the same thing as the patriot act or even gestapo.

This is worse by a mile than patriot. Even so it doesn't make patriot right.


We won WWII, but yet, much of what we fought against, seems like it is coming into being anyways.

Right now we don't have crackpots out to conquer all of europe and the south pacific at least this week... and Bush is gone in a couple of years.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[slashdotnickname]

We won WWII, but yet, much of what we fought against, seems like it is coming into being anyways.

Societies, and the responsibilities individuals want to take on in them, have changed substantially since 60 years ago.

100,000+ people didn't have the sense to travel 20 miles inland to save their own life... millions justify bombing health clinics or civilian buses under the name of out-dated mythological figures... "dont open attachments" might as well be latin for many people...

bottom line, don't expect these societies of today to create leaders that have much respect for their fellow man's individuallity/freedom/privacy.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[famebait]

This is a pedaphile's ultimate dream.

While there are many, many concerns with registries of personal information, this one I really do not get.

Is it in some way difficult for child-molestors to find victims without a registry?

Re:I wish this was a joke

[WindBourne]

s/intangible/intractable/g

Re:I wish this was a joke

[salesgeek]

I believe this is well intended.

There's a road that goes someplace really bad that's paved with these things.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[InvalidError]

A relatively small-scale and short-term deployment is not indicative of how a full-scale deployment would fare in the long-term.

Projects are initiated to reduce costs or generate profits. Right now, this looks like a partitioned central database but 20 years down the road (after the initial complaints are forgotten), they may decide to give more agencies full access.

Power and intentions shift when money is involved. Abuse is only a matter of time.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[RPoet]

To understand the argument, you have to understand the myths of child molesters (who are often prejudicially called "pedophiles"). The child molester, says one myth, breaks into houses at nights, takes children out of their beds and away to their abuse-dungeons in their basements, and invariably subjects them to horrible sexualized violence. The child is then either killed on site, or returned home after senseless beating and threats to keep secrets.

Such a child registry would help these mythos molesters locate houses with children in them, so the registry is the molester's "ultimate dream".

Never mind that by far the most sexually molested children were molested by someone in their immediate relation, that most molesters are situational offenders and not pedophiles, and that child sexual abuse has been declining for years. The "stranger danger" is a modern myth created by extremist feminists in the 1970s, and buying into it hurts children, and hurts the grownup victims of senseless accusations.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[molotov02]

In a elaboration about my previuous post, I forgot to include a few things. Firstly; right now, al the system does is inform agencys already involved in a certain case, that other agencies are involved as well. This is important and isn't stated in the original newspost here. It was mentioned in Dutch news. It does not give a small group of people all rights about a person, it gives people already trusted with care (social workers, police, etc) information that more people are working on a certain case. secondly; arguments that this will mean that in 20 years everyone will be permanently tracked is a fallacy. Pointing out the potential problems & dangers is valuable, immediately jumping to big brother scenario's is not. Also; immediately linking this DB to WWII is just stupid. I quite agree with Godwin's law; you just lost the argument because you failed to provide any reasenable arguments but instead just turned to hysteria. thirdly; the Netherlands is not the USA. I'm pretty upset by your patriot act, but this isn't a copy. please don't treat it like one. So if people feel obliged to link this system to others; my personal comparison would be automated police records. So that someone committing a crime in city A can be caught in city B. thats just how I think about it though, I'm aware the comparison doesn't strech all the way. I do share the concern about oversealuous workers flagging somebody for life. From what I gather from the news, this would be difficult and involve a completely fake report. But I'm not quite sure. All I can say is that the trials so far have produced good results.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Digi-John]

What is up with this attitude? When I was in school, I never had to study, always got A's on quizzes, things just came to me naturally. However, instead of being harassed by the teachers or fellow students, I was simply recognized as a really good student. If anybody had a question about math, science, English, Japanese, computing, whatever, they just asked me and I answered as well as possible.

Unless my school was a total deviation from the norm, smart kids don't get harassed unless they start acting like jerks.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[kentheman]

(To tell the truth; we're surprised the government actually does something like this right)

Please speak for yourself. Not everyone in The Netherlands has joined the bash-the-government bandwagon.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[drsquare]

Why should kids be able to get away with unacceptable behaviour just because they're born clever?

What the hell is G&T?

Re:I wish this was a joke

[DenDave]

I dunno but Donner and Balkie combined with Zalm smells awefully neocon to me! The case may stem from a previous cabinet but the coverup was Donner's administration. As for the dataretention dutch ISP xs4all.nl has quite a scoop about the local implementation!! http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/bericht.php?id=671 Donner being a big proponent of gestaponet(tm) being implemented!

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Doc Ruby]

Gee, maybe the Nazis were real, and not just some historical invention. Maybe we should learn from the past, so we don't repeat it. Maybe Godwin's law is BS, and in one stroke somehow protects modern nazis from their obvious echoes of those monstrously real people. Maybe Godwin's law is a ridiculous bit of Internet fluff, compared to the terrible lessons we learned from the Nazis, which we must discuss as a living possibility now that we've shown what depths we're capable of descending to.

Maybe the corollary to Godwin's "law" is that once someone uses Godwin's law to deflect comparisons to Nazis, they're probably a serious threat to life and liberty.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Ihlosi]

Why should kids be able to get away with unacceptable behaviour just because they're born clever?

Define "unacceptable".

Correcting a mistake the teacher made ? Unacceptable for some teachers, since teachers are never wrong and students are always wrong. (Experienced this one myself, basically, the teacher threw a tantrum when the _whole friggin' class_ pointed out to him politely that what he just said was wrong, since we all knew the right answer from a class we've just had earlier the very same day.

Student showing mild signs of boredom (such as looking out the window, or reading ahead in the textbook) since he could hold the class himself ? Unacceptable ?

What the hell is G&T?

Gifted & talented.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[SargeantLobes]

Being a Dutchman, maybe I can shed some light on this.

The reason this system was thought up, is to prevent goverment agencies, like social services, from losing sight of children that are in trouble. Too often families which need serious supervision and help, don't get it. Simply because they moved to a different city, and the approiate agencies are completely unaware that there is a problem.

Not too recently some psycho mom killed her childeren (I forgot the specifics), eventhough authoroties were aware that she needed help, but the people who could do something about it all, didn't have the right information.

I seriously doubt that this system could be exploited to cause harm, but I don't think anybody should be able to view all information except for that persons/family case worker. Schools and police could quite easily add flags without getting to know anything else about a child.

Besides, I can't really think of a system that would be able to do the same job, and not have any of the cons. Child abuse is a serious problem, and it still happens a lot more than any of us realise (and how lucky we are).

I don't think the citizen's service number could cause any difficoulties, I've had a social seceruty number since I was about ten, so this isn't such a strech.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[dheltzel]

or even gestapo

OK, we can now invoke Godwin's law and go browse another thread.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't say that a single worker would have exclusive rights to a child. It says that noone can access all the contents of a file. A file is a single person. Many people have access to the file, but they can't see all of it.
It also says nothing about this being open to the public, so it could only possibly help pedaphiles who are employed by the government.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Reservoir Penguin]

If it's main purpose is to help save abused children, then one should be able to request his removal from the database when they get full adult rights, right?

Re:I wish this was a joke

[hcdejong]

I see no scoop there. Donner may be in favor of data retention, but the Houses of Parliament aren't, see e.g. the Bits of Freedom newsletter (sorry, Dutch only)

Re:I wish this was a joke

[molotov02]

Yes, I agree with that. Now, I'm NO expert in this, but as far as I know, all criminal records will remain in the police DB as is standard with all criminal violations. But 5 years after the fact and punishment, you can ask for your record to be expunged. But for any exact answers on how exactly the records function you should ask the creators. They didn't include a full spec. in the press message :)

Re:I wish this was a joke

[bannerman]

>>As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file.

>And so what if one malicious worker has exclusive rights to view several hundred children? It doesn't matter if they have access to the whole database or not, even a "small pecentage" could be several hundred or thousand children. This is a pedaphile's ultimate dream.

I think this is a stupid idea as well, but the wording here obviously has to do with a single child's file, not a single database file. You don't need to take things out of context and make it sound worse than it is. It's bad enough already, without that.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[alcmaeon]

We won WWII, but yet, much of what we fought against, seems like it is coming into being anyways.

The propaganda says WWII was a war for freedom against totalitarianism, but that's just the propaganda.

The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state and an Allied country. The U.S. used (and still uses) totalitarian methods, though we still give a wink now and then to "freedom." The British also used (and still use) totalitarian methods with a wink now and then to "freedom."

WWII was really about not letting upstarts like the Germans and Japanese horn in on the world domination of Great Britain and, later, of the U.S.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[josh_miller]

So you potentially save "a few" kids while exposing the info on countless others to Jeebus knows who.

If Social Services are indeed "hugely incompetent", will the availability of this database really help to the extent intended?

Re:I wish this was a joke

[hoggoth]

Your school was a total deviation from the norm.

In my experience as a kid in school and as a parent of kids in school, smart kids who are not also athletic are picked on, teased, tormented, and put down constantly.
Their only recourse is to "hide", to try to not be noticed, or to fight. And if they are not athletic or they are physically small, fighting will not have good results.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[molotov02]

The information is not provided to 'jeebus knows who'. It is provided to certified, professional social workers & police officers.
Yes, it is absolutely possible that one of those individuals misuses the system. However, this DB is not publicly available for exactly that reason and not everything shred of information is available to just any individual with access to the system, so the 'jeebus knows who' argument does not stand.

A big part of the incompetence of the social services is that they are usually oblivious to other problems or agencies involved in a case. So yes, I think this system would actually help. As far as I see the system, it allows social workers to see all relevant information about a case instead of having to call a dozen other agencies or read a stack of papers for every case.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[hoggoth]

> Correcting a mistake the teacher made ?

This reminds me of a time in grade school when my science teacher told the class, "there are more brain cells in the brain than atoms in the universe." Of course this was obviously wrong and I pointed out that, "since brains are made of atoms, clearly there are more atoms in the universe than brain cells."
The teacher told me, and the class, that I was wrong and she was right.
Then I explained that she probably meant that there were more possible combinations of connections between brain cells than atoms in the universe. She maintained her original statement and threatened me with detention.

I learned a valuable lesson that day that many authority figures don't think and weren't interested in discussing it.
And that most students (people in general) were happy to accept whatever was told them without thinking about it either.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[DenDave]

Interesting, but it is the first chamber of parliament that's mumbling... they have little actual power over the lower house and cabinet.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Fjan11]

more often then not, these kinds of things get abused in some form or another

Which would you rather have:

1. Abuse of the database with a bit of information ending up in the wrong hands, or

2. Abuse of children not being spotted because there is no database at all

I'd rather have a database and trust the Dutch democratic system to put in proper controls (I might think different if I were in the US).

Re:I wish this was a joke

[ifwm]

"It is provided to certified, professional social workers & police officers."

Because people who abuse children NEVER seek positions that give them easy access to kids.

Oh, wait, that's exactly what they do.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[hcdejong]

Read some more. The second chamber has similar objections.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[waif69]

Unfortunately it will only be a matter of time that all civilized or western nations will be doing this. most of us will be in a database and will have no privacy. Hopefully that will happen after my descendents migrate to other planets by then.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto. I had a techer who insisted the moon's gravity was 1/4 that of earth's. Refused to look at my proof that she was wrong.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Mac Degger]

"you can find out about it beforehand"

And that's the problem. You can't. You say you can; how? Really, how? By looking through a system where this information is logged...oh, waitaminute! That's the system being proposed!

I agree that this is not the best idea, and it is open to abuse. But so is the tax system. And it can allow people to litterally fall through the cracks: "what, no System ID Number? You don't exist."

Re:I wish this was a joke

[tezbobobo]

Well generally this is a unitised system. The approach is generally that medical staff have acces to that information and so on. The real problem here is an invasion of liberty. By that I mean the liberty that John Stuart Mill spoke of, not any politician you'll hear nowadays.

Also, they talk of troubled kids. Who is it that decides where to set these arbitary limits. Set them too tight and you'll wind up with a police state.

I for one do not want to carry an ID card (how these systems usually work, see France and soon Australia). I do nt think I should have to, and forcing me to is a restriction of my liberty. I feel sorry for the people who will have to. I will take wagers that this will be the system implemented.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[2TecTom]

sigh ... size doesn't matter, nor even winning.

Simply fighting back earns both respect and self confidence.

Everyone has difficulties; even gifted people. Everyone is struggling to overcome thier own personal difficulties.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

that could lead to profiling and profiling is wrong

Gun control is a form of profiling.

And many who claim to oppose "profiling" enthusiastically support gun control as "reasonable" and "common sense."

Welcome to the world of 45 million to 90 million law-abiding gun owners.

And never mind that blacks in the United States committ more violent crime, and at a much higher per-capita rate, than gun owners do.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[uncoveror]

So, the Beast of Belgium will actually be in the Netherlands? I wonder if they got any of their ideas for this program from Total Information Awareness?

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Sylver Dragon]

secondly; arguments that this will mean that in 20 years everyone will be permanently tracked is a fallacy.

I'd like to see an argument supporting this statement. From the article:

Beginning Jan. 1, 2007, all citizens will be tracked from cradle to grave in a single database -- including health, education, family and police records

Perhaps my reading comprehension is failing me but it would seem that, far from being a fallacy, the argument that everyone will be tracked permanently, is exactly what this databse is designed to do. I don't think anyone is claiming that it is going to be used to keep a posisiton and log on everyone every second of every day; however, with just a few additions to what was mentioned, this could be a very scary thing indeed.
Consider for a moment if one was to attach political afiliations and known associates to this data. You could then create a map of people, which would allow an unscrupulious person and/or group to persecute a group of people based on beliefs, and have an easy time doing it.
As for the claim that there are privacy safeguards and that no person will have access to all of the data at once, what is enforcing that exactly? A government promise? I would hope that people would realize by now that a promise from a government that it will "be good" isn't worth jack. All it takes is a few people who do want to abuse a system for it to be abused.
This systems is the first step to an Orwellian nightmare, and people are not only accepting it, they are supporting and defending it.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[E8086]

"The Dutch proposal is not "till the grave", but only for the juvenile years."

They DO want to track "till the grave"
"Beginning Jan. 1, 2007, all citizens will be tracked from cradle to grave in a single database -- including health, education, family and police records"

"Especially NOW the overzealous social worker could cause harm, with the proposed new system there would not be a single person or institution dealing with the problem."

That's the problem, someone would be making assumptions/generalizations without all the information.

Yes, there are records kept of people's medical and criminal records but they're not examined for connections. Taking your kid to the emergency room for a street football injury or a high fever won't make you a suspect for future child abuse. There's a chance one part of the records will only show hospital visit but no reason. You'd think there would be some rechecking by another agency, but it is a government system.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a good point. Furthermore, how many kids have made tons of mistakes growing up (which would appear as red flags in such a database), yet turned out completely fine and socially adjusted? I wonder how many false positives this database system is going to produce.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[molotov02]

Hmmm, good points.
firstly; my opening post was that I too am concerned about the possibilities this law gives. Especially because I live in Holland.

But the statement from the yahoo article is a bit much. Articles from our Dutch paper gave a bit more detail than this single epic sentence. The situation is not quite so grave.

I'm quite sure every pro-privacy is monotoring this situation. Just a promise from the goverment not to misuse the data is indeed not enough. But simply automaticly stating that this will immediately begin a big brother age like some people here would be a bit much.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[kfg]

In every government there is some malicious back-room government worker who goes below the radar.

These are bad enough, but the ones who really scare me are the ones who actually mean well.

There is no power on earth that can fuck you harder and more thouroughly than a government worker doing it "for your own good."

KFG

Re:I wish this was a joke

[crotherm]

Correcting a mistake the teacher made ? Unacceptable for some teachers, since teachers are never wrong and students are always wrong. (Experienced this one myself, basically, the teacher threw a tantrum when the _whole friggin' class_ pointed out to him politely that what he just said was wrong, since we all knew the right answer from a class we've just had earlier the very same day.

Student showing mild signs of boredom (such as looking out the window, or reading ahead in the textbook) since he could hold the class himself ? Unacceptable ?

My son goes through this all the time. Some teachers are such controlling jerks. They have their nice little personal dictatorship and damn anyone who say different. Granted, I know not all teachers are like this, having met and worked with some great teachers, but I have also run into lots of teachers who are just evil, even if they don't realize it.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Jozer99]

Children tagged to be trouble will be melted into Deisel fuel for the cat car.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Sylver Dragon]

Given that all I have to go by is the article from yahoo, perhaps this isn't as bad as it seems.

...simply automaticly stating that this will immediately begin a big brother age like some people here would be a bit much.

Perhpas it is a bit reactionary, though given that govenments rarely give up a power once they have been granted it, I find it is usually best to look at the worst case scenario when considering a government request for an extension of its powers. Is Big Brother a necessary conclusion with this extension? No, but it is a posibillity and one that should be well addressed before the people allow this sort of thing.
Since you are closer to the issue than me (I'm in California, USA) have they addressed how they plan to track access to this information and provide accountability for misuse? This is just a database afterall, it should be possible to log every time data is accessed, by whom, and what they saw. Will that log (or at least the who looked up information on what people) be available for public scrutiny? Will people be able to check all data stored on them and correct it if it is in error?
This just seems like a power with the potential for large problems down the road. Yes, it might save some lives now, but if it is abused it could lead to more suffering later.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Nutria]

Usually, afterwards it became know that quite a lot of social services were involved into the family, but didn't communicate with each other or that records simply 'vanished' because the family moved. in result; children die because social services are hugely incompetent.

"If you don't know how to do something, you don't know how to do it with a computer."
Anonymous

This cradle-to-grave database won't fix what the US calls Child & Family Services.

What it will do is open the door to the concept of tracking every jot & tittle generated about you by the gov't, the healthcare system & the insurance companies.

I'm not too concerned about this happening in the USA any time in the nex 20 years, since

• there's 19x more people in the US
  
• Holland is tiny, 1/2 the size of NJ, and the US is BIG;
  • San Diego to Boston - 4150km
  • Dublin, IE to Moscow - 2800km.
    
  • NL is highly urbanized, the US still has lots and lots and lots of small towns spread from Barrow AK to the rural southeast
• these kind of databases are really hard to design, build, maintain, etc

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha !

The BIG problem is not access to all children data. The BIG problem is that somebody can have access to that data of TROUBLED children. Don't need to guess how a bad guy can benefit it.

  Simple scenario - just find a girl with red flags and call her and give her a choice - some sex service or ... yet another red flag ! Guess what she chose ? Talk to police ? - don't be a stupid, she is a TROUBLED girl with red flags and is a second sort of citisen now...

Re:I wish this was a joke

[molotov02]

No biggie, my responds was reactionary as well :) Our government is not really popular, but not a group of power crazy maniac thank the gods (although they do sometimes want to make huge & stupid decisions IMHO). I'm no expert, what I know I got from the media. But I'll try to answer your questions as well as possible. I do believe there is a log of what agency and which worker placed the data & red flags. I can only assume that there is also an access log. That log will probably not be available for public scrutiny, just from the people with access. This is because of privacy regulations. Otherwise everything might as well be on the streets, which is not allowed of course. The data stored would be checked by the workers themselves and when contacting other agencies about their data. Oh, almost forgot. They did mention very specifically that once a month, every agency worker involved in a certain case comes together to talk about the case in person. This would be a good place to do some error checking. Again, I agree that when abused it would be dreadful. But for now, it works fine. This is something to watch, absolutely. And I do believe this is watched closely. Should this go wrong I'll be one of the first to protest against it, but for now it's a working tool to prevent harm.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's put something different on the table: maybe it's better to let those one or two high profile cases happen rather than to usher in the evil that the proposed system enables.

Either option sucks bad. We need to decide which sucks worse. It's pure engineering. Neither solution is perfect, you'll just need to pick the one that sucks the least.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[riker1384]

Or they get bad grades and fail because the whole thing is a joke.

Re:I wish this was a joke

[DenDave]

Well thats good. I just saw earlier today that the Left fraction in the second chamber may push a motion of no confidence in Donner!! That would be historic!

Re:I wish this was a joke

[rtb61]

The database itself isn't quite so bad (it ain't good either) it is the use to which they intend to put it. Just imagine a bunch of physiologists and statisticions pouring over that data a creating a program that will be defining a child's future. By the time a child finishes primary school a whole swag of career paths will automatically be blocked.

Naturally it will be a secret database (secret to the people it affects but wide open to those that can pay) and I am sure that the rich will have by far the best and cleanest record money can buy.

Now of course it is time for a reality check. This is not about creating that database, this is about milking a government of large amounts of money while attempting to create something that can never work. How many times has this same idea under various guises been tried already (pursuing criminals, pursuing terrorists, now for pursuing kids skipping school). Hundreds of universities and thousands of psychiatrists have been tackling these kind of problems for centuries (we are slowly getting better at it) and all of a sudden the "magic computer" with it's "magic software" will solve it at the press of a button, oh yeah, can't help but laugh at the bureaucrats ignorance.

Finally we can track human migration!

[kahanamoku]

Like tags on pidgeons!

ugh

[neurokaotix]

It's dangerous storing all information about people in one, most likely easilly hackable location.

Re:ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I wonder what's so dangerous about keeping a central database of persons. It somehow alert a bunch of people what the word "children" involved. But what is the real danger of this?

Re:ugh

[ciroknight]

Personally I'd be more worried about what the Government would be doing with that wealth of information verses what the balls-to-the-wall, caffeine-hyped, advertising firm-paid cracker would do.

There are some crazy things a government could do with that kind of information; track genetic traits, mental defects, medical procedures, medicines taken.. This information is a combination of things that us Americans see as private and need things such as subpenas to see.. Now the police department can be granted access to rummage and look for "possible offenders" before they do anything wrong.

It has strong uses, but its misuses seem to out number them (IMO) in a society that still has troubles seeing everyone as an equal. This "development" is very far ahead of its time.

Re:ugh

[moro_666]

imagine that theres a paid hitman that is coming to get you ... he could have lots of difficulties questioning people to find out where you live who your grandparents are, where did you last time cross the border etc. now we are saving his time by making it available to him with 1 sql query ...

efficient ... but do you really would like this to happen ? i dont think so ...

anyway, i think that this is actually against human/privacy rights to put his data out far in the open before he/she can even say "mama" for the first time ...

on the other hand, we all will end up in a database one day anyway (we are all 'kindof' in the slashdot database, aint we ? :p), so "Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated ..."

---
besides, this way you get to search for a girlfriend easilly, just one query with some measures/behaviour notices and you have your date ...

Re:ugh

[KillShill]

if the cartels respected copyright and not increased the duration to greater than the time it takes the universe to die of heat loss and made it possible and legal to prevent lawful uses of purchased media (allowing backup for example) then the public would be far more inclined to respect copyright.

isn't it ironic that the first hollywood studios moved out west where the patent police couldn't bust them for "STEALING" Edison's work. sure patents and copyright are different but they both fall into, in their words, the "intellectual property" domain.

the onus is on them to fix their side before they can even remotely accuse anyone of not respecting copyright.

sorry offtopic but still, it needs to be addressed.

Re:ugh

[rwhamann]

besides, this way you get to search for a girlfriend easilly, just one query with some measures/behaviour notices and you have your date ...

SELECT NAME FROM EVERYONE WHERE BOYFRIEND = .F. AND HUSBAND = .F. AND CUP = 'D' AND LAST_TIME_HAD_SEX "

'cuz you know it's the crazy ones that make the best flings ...

Re:ugh

[RAMMS EIN]

``This information is a combination of things that us Americans see as private and need things such as subpenas to see.. Now the police department can be granted access to rummage and look for "possible offenders" before they do anything wrong. ''

"Funny" that if you look at what's actually happening, the US is keeping thousands of possible offenders locked up without trial or even a prospect of it, while the Dutch are releasing possible offenders for lack of evidence. I don't like our (I am Dutch) government, but there's a long way to go before it becomes as bad as in the US.

It is true, though, that the Dutch government has broad means and power to spy on its citizens, and uses it, too. I would like to see some data on how effective this actually is in terms of catching criminals and getting them convicted (evidence gathered this way is not considered in court), but I suspect it's not very helpful.

Re:ugh

[orthogonal]

Now I wonder what's so dangerous about keeping a central database of persons. It somehow alert a bunch of people what the word "children" involved. But what is the real danger of this?

Here's an answer I gave over a year ago on Slashdot. Coincidentally, it used as an example Dutch history, and a particular Dutch girl who was anything but protected by the authorities.

I was writing in reply to a commenter like you who saw nothing to worry about. That commenter wrote:

Think of this utopia: The government is honest, never abuses info collected about the people,... Now would you really mind having a lot of data about yourself collected,... Collecting personal data by itself is harmless.

Anyway, here's how I replied last May, on what happened to be the 44th anniversary of the Dutch surrender to Nazi Germany:

Ok, I'm thinking of your utopia. I'll even make it a better utopia: I'll posit that no business try to hack into the government databases for personal gain. And I'll go so far as to pretend that no government employee with access ever abuses that access for personal reasons.

Now, imagine that your utopia is The Netherlands. And imagine it's not May 15, 2004, but May 15, 1940 -- one day after The Netherlands surrendered to Nazi Germany. Note that in surrendering, The Netherlands legally turned over government control to the Nazis. Presumably that would included your database -- if the Nazis hadn't simply seized it outright.

Your utopian database contains the details of all residents, anyone who might join the Resistance, and all the Jews -- including Otto and Edith Frank and their daughters Margot and Anne.
The Frank family managed to hide from the Nazis for two years; how long do you think they'd manage in your "utopia".

Now some will say that there's little chance of Nazi invasions these day, so we should feel safe with "utopian" databases. But it doesn't take a foreign invasion to radically change a government: sometimes it just takes an election, of an Anzar or a Berlusconi or a Blair & Blunkett team or a Bush or a Howard -- or a former war criminal like Waldheim.

Remember COINTELPRO?

Here's the original comment.

Maybe the Dutch aren't reading their history any more, or maybe they just think history is over. It surely is over for Anne Frank and most of the others who got tattooed with generated id numbers and entered into the Nazi's great big people-exterminating database.

But, as always, there's a new generation ready to trust that the government and their oh-so-well-intentioned Leaders will never do wrong. I mean, it's not like FEMA was ever misused for political reasons, right? Right?,

Re:ugh

[randomblast]

The Dutch have no hitmen.
They have only pancakes and bongs.

Re:ugh

[Associate]

Shouldn't this be in the other article about patents?

Re:ugh

[ciroknight]

I (as an American) am staunchly against what is happening in Guantanamo Bay; I think it's an absolute travesty, and I believe that the international community should not look at these past five years as an example of how the United States of America deals with a problem.

I would be entirely for economic sanctions against America until we released those people from that base. It's disgusting that we have that much of a lack of respect for the other countries on this planet. It's disgusting to think that our military personel are so entrenched in following orders that nobody would stand up to their superiors and say that what we are doing is just plain wrong.

Luckily, I live in a very liberal community where protesting is a right of passage more than civil disobediance, and I have personally wrote my congressman about this (along with a hundred different topics for different discussions here on Slashdot), but I'm afraid as a single human being my clout doesn't reach that far. The American People should have stood up in 2004 when they had a chance to put an end to this madness...

Re:ugh

[koekepeer]

how in heaven's name did you get the impression that the dutch society is one where people have trouble to see everyone as equal? either you are completely ignorant of anything non-US, or you are trolling.

inequality in the USA is a LOT bigger than in the Netherlands - in material wealth, job opportunities, and perception between people.

you see, we DO take care of the weaker, instead of enriching the richer, and letting the poor rot in the ghetto.

i am a dutch citizen, and not a fan of this electronic registration system, but don't spread stupid blatant lies as an argument.

Re:ugh

[RAMMS EIN]

``and I believe that the international community should not look at these past five years as an example of how the United States of America deals with a problem.''

Of course, they also locked up Japanese people in camps at the beginning of World War 2, and they have been known to overthrow (sometimes democratically elected) governments in other countries and replace them with dictatorships that were ideologically more in line with the US. It's really not just the last 5 years.

``The American People should have stood up in 2004 when they had a chance to put an end to this madness...''

Yes. You seem to be interested in this sort of thing...can you explain why Americans voted for Bush again? I'm looking from the outside in, of course, but to me it seems Bush never did much good for the country. Disregarding from his foreign policy for the moment, I don't see much he has done for quality of life in the US (save for some rich people). So what made him so popular? Making a fist against the rest of the world? Did people actually believe Gore wouldn't protect them against terrorism? Or was Gore just not charismatic enough? Or have people been brainwashed by the media? What do you think?

Re:ugh

[ciroknight]

To be perfectly honest, and this is just my opinion on the whole situation so don't take it as gospel or anything, but I think the only reason Bush got back in is because the person he was running against never stood a chance in the first place (Kerry was a complete jackass), and I believe that like in the 2000's elections, some unfair play might have taken place.

Ohio (the deciding state) had a lot of counties using electronic voting machines which disturbingly broke down or didn't report accurately, and no record was ever kept of these voting transactions, so this will be impossible to prove one way or another.

Worse, Gore actually won the popular vote in the nation, yet didn't make it to presidency. I feel this a failure of the Democratic process in favor of the Republic process, but that's something we have to live with being a republic. Even moreso, I keep feeling less and less the need for an actual president, and moreso all of its positions cabinet members, restoring the balance of power to the executive branch (in contrast to congress, which was segmented by our system of federalism in a most ideal way).

Our government has a lot of interesting pecularities like all of the above, and that's not to say it's perfect. Disasters happen just as they have been continuously these past 5 years (and it's interesting to see them both happen one year after Bush is confirmed, in the very same window of time.. almost as if God is punishing the nation for their foolishness or telling us the end is near or something ;) (note: I'm agnostic->athiest)). I really don't feel the media has as much a play in the brainwashing as does the whole American climate; hardly anyone feels any interest in making their own country a better place, and is instead more worried about their daily chores and that taxes are too high.

Gore would have made an excellent president to follow Clinton, but Clinton may make an incredible president to follow Bush ;). Wouldn't it be a coup.. maybe the American public would notice the disturbing trends in politics..

But who knows, this entire post is just a bunch of mind questions and personal conspiracy theories/speculations. (Moderators; if you mod this post you are glaringly retarded as this is entirely of opinion. If you agree, reply, or don't if you have already moderated elseware. Sorry for telling you how to do your jobs but this isn't insightful, funny, informative, and I certainly hope it isn't flamebait or troll as it is only my viewpoint of the system as a whole.)

Re:ugh

[bvdbos]

I think the main factor in this is the brainwashing by the media but also the indoctrine by the governement. From where I live, in the Netherlands, it appears that the whole of the US has gone mad and is afraid. In the US you're either for Bush or for the terrorists, so it seems. The media have taken the same stance, but perhaps this is due to the owners of the media...

Re:ugh

[ciroknight]

Not trolling, but also not being Dutch, and being an American citizen of multiple racial heritages, I can tell you that the climate here is incredibly bad towards racism and sexism, and it is in the ways you wouldn't possibly think it would be.

That being said, you may not be able to see the sexism or racism yourself because you haven't sat on but one side of that fence your entire life. The Dutch are a people that are greatly of the same descendance, much more than here persay. And while you say you care about the weaker, have you ever been to a ghetto and seen the situation for yourself? Have you given your time recently? How about your blood?

As such, what I said isn't a "stupid blatant lie", it is a matter of opinion based on what I know about the racial climate worldwide at this point in time. Racism hasn't been a hot-button for a while now, but now that terrorism is one, racism is built into most peoples assumption of it. "Terrorists" can be profiled by pre-teens here in America, for example.

When I spoke earlier, I meant no offense to your society, but as a comment of the world as a society. This entire planet is filled with people who think they are better than someone else because their skin is a different color, their religion is the 'truer' one, their accents are more proper than the bourgeois, or because their sex is superior. While you may feel your country is populated with a much smaller perecentage of these people, I am certain you would be shocked and amazed when your electronic registration system goes into place and automatically identifies these people for you ;).

So please, before you say that I'm overplaying an issue, imagine what it's like for people on the other side of the issue, and then go ahead and make your claims against my post.

Re:ugh

[ciroknight]

Wow I hadn't realized the climate was that bad outside of our country. Certainly makes it interesting.

The "liberal" media here is being very quiet about their dislike of Bush, mainly because their latest attempts to quash everything Bush stands for has failed and failed again. The US Liberals as a whole are a very loose, disenfranchised group now; the "Democrats" as a political party are finally succumbing to the pressure of having compontents to the far left, and moderates.

This is causing a stir of emotions really. Essentially, the Republican party can railroad our government into anything at this point in time. They've got the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Executive Branch entirely, and with Robert's confirmation and the next Judicial candidate yet to be picked, we are looking at a very conservative American future.

I still feel that Bush's popularity isn't as fueled by the media; even in the light of the Katrina disaster and Bush's completely pathetic response, Bush has yet to take a political hit from this. The liberals are not pushing the issue, and the conservatives are standing up in support of Bush. Tie this with the fact that Bush is really a lame-duck and the fact that everyone's already worrying and discussing the 2008 Presidential Election with continued furvor, and you can see that Bush has lost a great deal of his potency. Hopefully, though, in contrast to his past 2 years of his first term, they won't be as explosive this time around. I hope to see a lot of the heat that the US is taking to cool down, to get more international news flowing again, and to get a sense that the rest of the world isn't just looking for a reason to do us in.. ;)

Re:ugh

[koekepeer]

"That being said, you may not be able to see the sexism or racism yourself because you haven't sat on but one side of that fence your entire life. The Dutch are a people that are greatly of the same descendance, much more than here persay. And while you say you care about the weaker, have you ever been to a ghetto and seen the situation for yourself? Have you given your time recently? How about your blood?"

as opposed to relying on individual small contributions, our taxes are huge compared to the US. i make sure to vote for the parties that believe in maintaining our social welfare system.

personally, i know people of all kinds of colors, shapes, and sizes, and i never made an issue out of it. i'm not blind to cultural differences, though. in fact, i'm curious about them (i love foreign food ;-P ).

as a consequence of our HUGE taxes, we do not have ghetto's, we do not have extreme poverty. there's some poverty, no system is perfect. but please look up the numbers on equality, and be ashamed of anyone boasting about the opportunities in the USA. they are only there for a happy few.

you say in parent post that your comment was adressed at the "world as a society". yet you specifically write in your original post: "This information is a combination of things that us Americans see as private and need things such as subpenas to see". in the context of an atricle about NL, can you understand that this seems to contradict what you say now? and can you understand that this can sound condescending to someone who lives in a very well-developed country that is (in)famous worldwide for its liberal and tolerant attitude?

i don't disagree with you so much, there is potential for abuse (with all of these sytems in general, in fact). racism, etc is all about identification with peers in times of distress. you will see its influence diminish when everybody has enough money.

it's the media and the government screaming "them radical muslims" and then nuancing it slightly afterwards that make people believe terrorism being a racist issue. i dislike these mechanisms as much as you do, but the answer is not to shout similar propaganda from the rooftops, making your favourite point.

the answer is dialog, i believe. mutual acceptance (not merely tolerance). and mutual appreciation. in the end, we could all learn to love each other's differences. it's so easy, in theory.

Re:ugh

[K-Mile]

Given the fact that recently the dutch hospitals found out that all patient files (of the two hospitals checked, over 1.2 million patients) were easily hackable, and also the hackers were able to modify the data (!) of those patients... The dutch government is really into security now, because this incident really opened their eyes. The minister of health didn't even know if a risk analysis was done!

Re:ugh

[dfjunior]

It can't be hacked, though, they're using linux

Re:ugh

[tritesnikov]

He's responding to the guy's signature.

Re:ugh

[ciroknight]

you say in parent post that your comment was adressed at the "world as a society". yet you specifically write in your original post: "This information is a combination of things that us Americans see as private and need things such as subpenas to see". in the context of an atricle about NL, can you understand that this seems to contradict what you say now? and can you understand that this can sound condescending to someone who lives in a very well-developed country that is (in)famous worldwide for its liberal and tolerant attitude?

In my original post, I intended the statement about the need for a subpena for medical records in connection to an ongoing police matter was meant only in that connection; a lot of other countries have different rules for their legal systems, and I didn't want to stub my toe on one of those cases here. In doing so, I gave the most obvious example I could come up with (the American legal system), as it is almost ubiqitious in television, at least on this side of the pond.

That being said, if it weren't for this system you have now, I honestly wouldn't mind living in your country either, but I am certain there would be quite an anti-American buzz in the community that I moved into, and that's just a part of the issue I was trying to get at by inequity. It's not so much that your people are flawed in this, it is that people in a whole are flawed in this. We fear what is different to us, and it makes us weak as a whole.

Racism isn't one of my favorite points either, it just fit the bill so well here. This technology is the perfect tool for a racial discriminatory system to work with, and that just irks me. If we were machines we'd learn each other's interfaces and be done with it for the current generation, making sure the next generation was built specifically to deal with the differences encountered, but sadly, we are humans, and we let emotions made a lot of these kinds of decisions for us. And at 5:16am in the morning after a long night of coding, often times all you are left to run on is emotion, in this case, disgust for the overwhelming power the Dutch has handed to their government. I know, it shouldn't concern me as much, I'm a dirty American Liberal, but I can just imagine Bush or one of my politicians using the Dutch as an example to import the system, and that's something my mind is simply not equipped to handle. One fight for digital rights at a time, please.

Re:ugh

[b10m]

I agree, let's start with burning the white pages!

Re:ugh

[1u3hr]

imagine that theres a paid hitman that is coming to get you ... he could have lots of difficulties questioning people to find out where you live who your grandparents are, where did you last time cross the border etc. now we are saving his time by making it available to him with 1 sql query ...

Yes, thank God they didn't have this in LA in 1984, the Terminator could have killed the right Sarah Connor and we'd all be fucked.

Re:ugh

[RAMMS EIN]

``To be perfectly honest, and this is just my opinion on the whole situation so don't take it as gospel or anything, but I think the only reason Bush got back in is because the person he was running against never stood a chance in the first place (Kerry was a complete jackass), and I believe that like in the 2000's elections, some unfair play might have taken place.''

I think that about sums up my thoughts on the matter. I'm happy to find someone who actually lives in the States who agrees with me :-) (many Americans I know outside the States think like you and me).

About Kerry not standing a chance: I think that points out yet another weakness of the US political system; you only have 2 realistic choices, what if you don't like either?

About fair play: it's difficult to assess, but I did get the impression that Bush was clearly the more popular candidate around. Yes, the voting machines were faulty, but he would have won even if that hadn't been the case.

The voting machines have me worried, though. We use electronic voting machines in the Netherlands (have been doing so since sometime in the 1990s), and I just have difficulty thinking of any good way to trust these machines. The way they work now, I don't get any receipt of my vote, so there's no way for me to check my vote was recorded right. Not that you have assurance that your vote will be _counted_ right in any system, but when you write your vote on paper, at least you know what you wrote. Even if the machine gave me a print out, I don't have any guarantee that it actually reports the same vote to the rest of the world, whether by paper or electronically.

``Worse, Gore actually won the popular vote in the nation, yet didn't make it to presidency. I feel this a failure of the Democratic process in favor of the Republic process, but that's something we have to live with being a republic.''

Not really. If you can determine the popular vote, you can use it instead of the electoral college. Similarly, if you want to get rid of the limitation of only having two realistic choices, you can use runoff voting, or something advanced like Condorcet voting. IMO, having more than two choices is of crucial importance.

``I really don't feel the media has as much a play in the brainwashing as does the whole American climate''

This is a universal problem with democracy everywhere. When things are going well, people just don't have an interest in politics. Even when they do take an interest, they don't usually invest enough time to get to the bottom of things. People are also easily influenced by the Wizard's First Rule (they believe everything you tell them, either because they're afraid it's true, or because they want it to be true).

Disinterest and (the resulting) ignorance makes people vulnerable to manipulation by the media (US media extensively covering the suffering because of attacks against the US and Israel, but not the suffereng caused by attacks by the US and Israel) or populist politicians (Hitler promising the Germans a glorious future, Fortuyn making the Dutch afraid of a threat that wasn't all that serious).

``and is instead more worried about their daily chores and that taxes are too high.''

In that light, it's worth noting that income tax in the Netherlands can be as high as 60% (it depends on how much you earn). Fuel prices are about 1.5 euros per liter (6.8 USD per gallon). That makes Americans complaining about taxes or fuel prices sound rather silly. :-)

As for the daily chores, I'm sometimes afraid that the global tightening of IP law will make it very nearly impossible for me to do my chores without breaking the law one day. That said, laws in western Europe tend to favor consumers over corporations, so it's not all that bad yet.

Re:ugh

[ckaminski]

While I may dislike George Bush, John Kerry was not the answer. The Democrats should NEVER have nominated him.

Re:ugh

[SillyNickName4me]

That being said, if it weren't for this system you have now,

It is a one day old proposal. If it is actually implemented is another question, and past experience with such things tells us that that can take years and lots of discussion if at all. (ie, introducing a national ID card and requiring people by law to indentify themselves in specific cases has taken some 2 decades of discussion)

I honestly wouldn't mind living in your country either, but I am certain there would be quite an anti-American buzz in the community that I moved into,

You would be wrong there. There is a substantial amout of disagreement with US foreign policy in the Netherlands, but I have yet to see people hold that against individuals from American origin and I happen to know quite a few of them living here)

Re:ugh

[Bastard User From He]

I'm thinking more in the lines of:
"That kid's been cought with alcohol at the age of 13, so he/she'll never get a job as public servant or in the recreational industrie"
"That kid's been cought playing doctor with his little neighbour girlfriend at an age of 6, so never a job as teacher for him"

I'm afraid that one day the information will be used as a way to make sure only the dullest and obedient types are placed on positions that matter, like our PM (me being Dutch too).

Re:ugh

[moofbong]

About Kerry not standing a chance: I think that points out yet another weakness of the US political system; you only have 2 realistic choices, what if you don't like either?

Vote for someone else! Seriously, it is possible. It's only because the vast majority of people think like you that we only have two realistic choices.

This works especially well if the party of your "least bad" choice among the two major players also controls congress. If nobody receives 50% of the electoral vote, the choice will go to the House and they will vote for your backup candidate.

Voting for a third party also has the benefit to influence the policies of the major parties. They don't want to lose your vote, so if the percieve that a lot of their vote is going elsewhere, they may adjust their platforms to accomodate you. This happened to some extent with the Greens and Democrats due to Nader's strong showing in the 2000 elections.

Re:ugh

[Ihlosi]

Vote for someone else!

That makes you a blip in the statistics, but nothing else.

This works especially well if the party of your "least bad" choice among the two major players also controls congress.

Whoops. I _knew_ that the "Vote for someone else" strategy came with some hooks attached.
Voting for a third party also has the benefit to influence the policies of the major parties.

In theory. In practice (and since so many other people are convinced that they only have two choices), minor parties are pretty much irrelevant.
This happened to some extent with the Greens and Democrats due to Nader's strong showing in the 2000 elections.

Yep, and the 2000 elections were won by neither of them, precisely because of this. Vote for a minor party instead of one of the two big ones, and you'll actually make the big party that you partially agree with lose the election. Way to go.

Re:ugh

[RAMMS EIN]

``Vote for someone else! Seriously, it is possible.''

Yes, it's possible, but it's not wise. If you like Nader, but you don't like Bush, you'd better vote for Gore. If you don't, you increase the chances of Bush winning, and Nader won't win anyway. This is why I said realistic choices.

The reason for this is the winner-take-all system, and the fact that you only vote for one candidate. Because of winner-take-all, a candidate can get a whole state worth of votes, without actually having gotten that many votes from the people. Because the only one vote, the candidate with the most votes from states wins, regardless of whether they got a majority of the people's votes or not. This is why it only makes sense to vote for a candidate who stands an actual chance of winning.

Sure, just by casting your vote you may influence the policy of all participating parties. However, that's not nearly as good as actually being able to vote for the party you like most, without the fear that you may support the party you hate most in doing so.

Re:ugh

[kotku]

I don't understand your reasoning at all. If I create something then I should be able to create whatever license I want for somebody who DID NOT create that product to agree to before using it. I should be able to say that if you want to use my work you have to stick your finger in a duck everytime you use it. If you don't like sticking your finger in ducks then don't use my work. Whats the problem? Nobody is forcing anybody to stick fingers in ducks.

Re:ugh

[jdavidb]

Very good point. We should remember that in a democracy, a government promise means nothing. The highest good in a democracy is doing what the voters want today. Voters always have the privilege of voting not to honor a promise that was made by their representatives (or even a promise they voted directly to make).

The U.S. social security system is a great example of broken promises. There was originally a cap on annual contributions. It was promised that noone would ever pay more than (I think) $3,000 in a year. Politicians can promise anything, but the voters are not obligated to vote to keep the promise.

Re:ugh

[max99ted]

I should be able to say that if you want to use my work you have to stick your finger in a duck everytime you use it. If you don't like sticking your finger in ducks then don't use my work. Whats the problem? Nobody is forcing anybody to stick fingers in ducks

That's the funniest thing I've read here today. Thanks :)

Re:ugh

[KillShill]

actually if you use the copyright system, as it originally and ideally should be used, you cannot control the way customers use your product. only distribution.

so if you want the benefits of copyright, then abide but its rules.

if you don't use copyright, then you may have a point. but that's something i haven't investigated yet.

Re:ugh

[WNight]

I think your US & Israel, buddies in killing brown people, thing is a bit out of line - in Israel's case... :)

All nations that face rampant terrorism become fascist in dealing with it, and few have had any luck at working to end terrorism. (The IRA is cooling down for now, but London is being targetted by new terrorists.) So, I don't think Israel is dealing that badly (except for parts of the settler issues) with a captive and hostile population, where neither side wants to be there.

I think the situation is analogous to the USA attacking Canada and being repelled, and losing Montana in the action. Then Canada finds that along with the regular residents, Montana was full of the USA's castoffs (illegal aliens, the french, etc) and the USA does not want to take them back. So Canada either retreats out of the area (allowing their position to weaken) or stays, but they obviously can't integrate the attackers religiously hostile people into their society, and nobody wants to take them back.

Add in religious hardliners on both sides, greedy political agendas, and egos on both sides, and it's easy to see how an already harm situation got where it is. But it certainly doesn't look like Israel wants this - if they could get out of this without feeling threatened (Honestly, does the area feel safer and more stable than the last few times they were suprise attacked by the combined forces of all the countries around them?) I'm sure they'd jump at the chance.

I'd really like to see any arab country open its doors to the Pallestinians. They sound like such allies when they use the Pallestinian's as a way to bash the jews, but when it comes to actually helping out... Oh, sorry, nobody home.

Re:ugh

[koekepeer]

nevermind. he doesn't get it.

those dutch

[Anonymous Coward]

Something's rotten in the Netherlands...

Re:those dutch

[msh104]

as a dutch person, I have to agree
it seems that many of the new directions we are heading in are in the wrong direction.

and guess what... most of this new thinking direction is about fucking terrorism. to "protect" us.

laws are already being passed to arrest people who haven't yet commited a crime but "might" do so in the near future. (because it is not much use to arrest someone who is going to blow himself up after he commited the crime.

according to our government they would even like to expanding this by making adoration for terrorists a crime. thinks like "I think bin laden is a cool guy" or "man, really darn nice explosion a few weeks ago" could very well cause you big trouble.

the problem is this kind of thinking is that it could very well cause people who are actually joking or haven't done anything to go to jail, it is also a very usable power source if they would decide to use it for bad things. and it is also a first direction into the breaking down of our freedom of speech.

our government is heading in the wrong direction. and in general, there is no such thing as turning back...

just hoping this isn't a general scenario.

Re:those dutch

[HeadOffice]

our government is heading in the wrong direction. and in general, there is no such thing as turning back...

Hey, I'm dutch too. Let's at least try to turn it back at the next elections.

Re:those dutch

[SillyNickName4me]

Hmm. sounds like a good plan :)

Re:those dutch

[dutchd00d]

I'm in.

Questions about this

[SB5]

Is this meant for control as in "Brave New World". Or is this meant for research? Knowing the Dutch, and the way this is worded, it seems to goal of this is noble. Whether it will stay noble is the question.

Re:Questions about this

[RAMMS EIN]

It certainly doesn't seem to be meant for control. It seems a sincere effort to try and address the problems of the youth in the country. And all that is happening is that institutions who get confronted with kids' problems will now share their information a bit more. I see that as a very sensible thing.

Re:Questions about this

[Anonymous Coward]

both far right and far left governments have a history of wet-dreaming about such power. I'd rather not hand it to them now or ever.

Re:Questions about this

[ciroknight]

The problem is that this system, good intention or not, has such a large net of effectiveness that it is overwhelmingly a positive, and overwhelmingly a negative situation, all rolled into one convenient digital package.

This has honestly hit me like a load of bricks tonight. The societial rammifications this kind of system could have are absolutely mindboggling. I honestly didn't believe I would live to see the day that this kind of system made it to the real world, but here we are, and the floodgates are open and wrought with a flood of questions.

While one would hope the government will approach this system with a level of benevolence that the all-mighty Google would bow to, I have the overwhelming pit forming in my stomach that it might not be the case. The peacetime and wartime uses of this system for any political power are so far and beyond that of anything that exists today; one could argue that this is a more dangerous weapon than a nuclear arsenal.

The one pit in this program that really burns me is that these human beings are being borne into it. They have no choice to the matter of how this information is collected and generated about them. The system has no opt-in or opt-out features to allow anyone who doesn't agree with the government on how their information is collected to stand out. The system has very few failsafes mentioned on how it would deal with a breech in security, a data-retention policy wasn't discussed.. there are so many questions that a single post could not possibly deal with them all. I hope the government is ready to open up their phone lines and listen, and that the people won't smile and nod their way through what is easily the most important and scary decision of their child's future.

Good luck Dutchmen.

Re:Questions about this

[Guus.der.Kinderen]

This comes as a response to numerous child-abuse cases in the last few years that hit the national news here:

• A few years ago, limbs of one child were found scattered in different places;
• A few months ago, a girl was discovered dead in the trunk of her mothers car, after being neglected for her entire, short, life;
• A few weeks ago, two kids were beaten to death by the new boyfriend of their mother.

In most cases, there were strong indications of problems before the murders. In all cases, child protection obviously failed. Our politicians are trying to set that right now. I'm not sure this is the right way, but I personally am glad that something is being done.

Re:Questions about this

[RAMMS EIN]

I can see what you're afraid of, but I just have two things I need to get off my chest:

1. Many people here seem to focus on the "bad things the government can do with this" aspect. It's not like the government is the only party or even the major party in this new system. The government isn't some all-evil entity that will abuse its powers whenever it can. At least we (the people) have some control over the goverment. I fear corporations more.

2. All the information that is being communicated in this system is just a small fraction of what's already being collected. I don't think you can reasonably argue that governments shouldn't know who lives in their countries, schools shouldn't keep records on their students, police shouldn't keep data on criminals, etc. All that is being done is that possible problems are signalled to other organizations who deal with the same people.

Having said that, concerns about abuse of information and lack of security are, of course, valid. This is true for any information-gathering activity, and the concerns are more important for larger systems.

Re:Questions about this

[JohanV]

This is in response to a tragedy where a mother killed 2 of her children. As an investigation showed afterwards, neighbours, the school, the general practiciner and even the police had all in the past warned Child Protection Services that there was something wrong with that family. All of these warnings individually where not enough for them to do something about it. Had somebody had the ability to see all these warnings together, that tragedy might have been prevented.

Judging from the text of the article, the system appears to be designed as a minimal implementation of a record keeping system to prevent this from happening in the future. The parties that commonly warn Child Protection Services (schools, police, GPs) get to set flags, and if too many independent flags show up it is investigated, even when individual flags are not enough for an investigation.

Re:Questions about this

[Mahler]

This is exactly what is wrong in (Dutch) politics these days. When a problem rises, and the existing institutions fail .. a new system is invented, which will probably fail also.

Instead, more effort may be put into making the existing institutions work more efficiently with less bureaucratic administration.

Re:Questions about this

[Uukrul]

This is exactly what is wrong in (Dutch) politics these days. When a problem rises, and the existing institutions fail .. a new system is invented, which will probably fail also.

If some thing don't works: change it.

Instead, more effort may be put into making the existing institutions work more efficiently with less bureaucratic administration.

Bureaucratic administration is the people between sensible data and unscropolous bussiness.
Bureaucratic administration wasn't invented to make difficult some tasks, it was invented to make difficult to make fraud.

Re:Questions about this

[Anonymous Coward]

With the current administration it might be noble in some misguided way, not sure though. There are lots of privacy protections that have been getting overturned lately --- usually with talk about security and *shudder* terrorism. A few years back there was a VPRO (a leftish / progressive public broadcaster) series "Quidam Quidam" which contained a distopian view of the dutch future, it contained a lot of camera surveillance which we have since gotten a lot of, biometrics used for all kinds of things (they'll be in our passports soon), databases containing lots of personal info (which we already have, but which will get even worse now that I hear about this proposal) and as a finishing touch the death penalty which luckily we will not get (for now?). And by the way in Afghanistan the dutch army are picking up people and turning them over to the United States, so who knows what will happen to these people. We are also the country that has (or had) the most phone taps per capita so...

Re:Questions about this

[1u3hr]

This is exactly what is wrong in (Dutch) politics these days. When a problem rises, and the existing institutions fail .. a new system is invented, which will probably fail also.

Not just Dutch. Former NY Mayor Giuliani wrote about this in his book. The NY child protection bureaucracies would have a scandal every few years when an obviously at-risk child was ignored until it was too late. The response was always to create a new organisation with a different name. But the system and most of the people were the same.

Re:Questions about this

[SillyNickName4me]

Let me start out by saying I don't like this database linking and red flag idea..

Instead, more effort may be put into making the existing institutions work more efficiently with less bureaucratic administration.

Which is exactly what is happening here. Existing information is used, but an addition is made to remove quite a bit of burocracy that prevented different organisations from informing eachother about potential problems.

Re:Questions about this

[Anonymous Coward]

How long until the children are divided into tables in the database based on various criteria? Perhaps the tables could be named in an easy to remember fashion.. alpha, beta, gamma...

Who watches the watchers?

[The Ivan]

TFA says: "As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file. " I say: "Yeah, right!" Fascinating to see Stasi-tendencies combined with computers.

Re:Who watches the watchers?

[martijnd]

And does this system come with an auto-destruct build in? In case of invasion for example. So nice to have Scape-Goat Catagory A come out in handy alphabatized lists.

Maybe not likely at the moment, but the one of the things people gave their lives trying to do following the German invasion of the Netherlands was to make sure as many public records were destroyed, all paperbased then, but still very usefull for tracking down "unwanted" elements for deportation.

Far fetched? It happened before for crying out loud. Doesn't have be an invasion, a change of government for the worse would be enough. Oh, sure, we are in an enlightned "post" war society these days. Crap.

Safeguards mean nothing on a system where a government is able to give it self unlimited access at any time in the future.

Wouldn't it be nice to filter out each potential future muslim extremist, and assign a stasi member for regular check ups? Sure, they can already do that, but its probably not as easy yet.

Thing is, this process is unstopable, as of course its the next thing todo, and hey, its good for the children themselves.

We already do the same thing with cows. Might as well give children one of those big yellow plastic ID tags in their ears for easy tracking between farms/schools.

I suggest we do away with names altogether; just numbers for each person. No names, sex, religion or any other easily filtered information is to be stored. Be very suspicious when someone is saying "you are more than a number to us"

Ok, enough paranoia, some tea is in order.

Re:Who watches the watchers?

[TuataraShoes]

Good

• Government accountable to people
• People presumed to be innocent
• State officials must identify and justify themselves to citizen
• State leaves law abiding citizens free to make own choices

Bad

• People accountable to government
• People watched in case they are guilty
• Citizen must identify and justify himself to state
• State intervenes to monitor/manage/control citizens choices

mmm...

[psallitesapienter]

Well, there goes Big Brother... again.

Re:mmm...

[spectrokid]

Well it was a Dutch guy who invented Big Brother (the TV-show). But seriously. I don't think the problem is criminal abuse. The problem is people who "know better" and use the system for things it was not intended for, "for the best of the child". Say somebody raises a "Flag" because your kid is very silent and in some cases this can point to child abuse. How long does this flag remain? If your kid wants to get into a university with a restricted number of places 15 years later, will this flag be held against him?

Sounds familiar...

[bassgoonist]

Like something that might lead to a gattaca like society...?

At Least We're Informed

[RAMMS EIN]

One good thing about the media in the Netherlands is that this new system has been visibly covered in the media. I can well imagine that it would have been swept under the rug in other places; after all, it's just various organizations dealing with children and their problems cooperating.

Re:At Least We're Informed

[StrayJay]

One bad thing about the population of the Netherlands is that the majority is

- too stupid to recognize the potential consequences of large databases (such as the one described in this article, or one created by logging all communications traffic).

- too gutless to deal with the possibility of a terrorist attack with the same resillience and diginity as the Brits.

- too trusting to see that Dutch politicians (most notably that *#@$&* Donner) go completely overboard and are not hindered by subject-matter knowledge. They no longer do what is necessary, they do what they can get away with.

I honestly believe that both Orwell's Nineteen Einghty-Four and Animal Farm should be mandatory reading for everyone in highschool.

And I envy the Americans for having a strong civil liberties organisation such as the ACLU.

What's going on

[jeroenb]

What is really going on is that the already existing files of different agencies are being coupled in an attempt to keep children in difficult situations from falling off the radar when for instance they move to a different city. Child protection services often didn't know about children moving into the city with problems in their past - in the old database the record would be closed and they wouldn't turn up in the new one until something actually happened (which is usually too late).

So I hope this is not interpreted as a terrible invasion of privacy - all the information is already collected by local governments. The only change is that moving from one local government's area to another doesn't mean those services lose all information.

Re:What's going on

[ciroknight]

Even if I would step back and honestly believe that it's not a terrible invasion of privacy, which I'm willing to do for a post or two on slashdot, it will be incredibly telling to see how the government will use this new ability to crosslink and track people a lot more closely.

This is one of the few times where centralization makes sense in one light, but is completely blind in another. Police officers could track "potential offenders" by running a query on who's doing badly in school and who comes from more troubled areas in cities. Governments could decide more closely who gets benefits for college education based on what high schools they came from, what exactly their grades were in every subject, and on what their intended major in college was going to be. These kinds of databases in America are not connected, and thus, everything's a mediated shot in the dark, but with the connections the Dutch will be making, well, anything's possible.

Sitting on the opening of a system like this, we can only speculate what it will mean for the dutch people. We'll have to wait at least another 20 years to see what's really becoming of the system, and then we will have an objective standpoint in which to base judgement. The government saying it will be benevolent now means nothing to me when in five years the whole regime is changed out for a new radical party with cross views on certain topics (hints abound what I'm talking about).

Re:What's going on

[Bombur]

The only change is that moving from one local government's area to another doesn't mean those services lose all information.

This was once called: Getting a clean slate. Now look at this: Consider you have done something wrong at your old schoool. You have been the class clown or something worse. Now you move for some reason. Your new teachers pull up that database and larn all about your former school career. You will be labeled a troublemaker even before you've had the chance to do anything right or wrong, despite your best intentions and all the serious threads from your parents.

Re:What's going on

[jeroenb]

Teachers don't have access to the database. The only ones with access to your old information is people who have access to your current information already. So in effect, the only change is for people that move. For people that don't move, everything stays the same.

Re:What's going on

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of the issues you raise there, are typical US issues, not dutch. Forinstance education is covered under different rules, which if you match you will always get benefits, and otherwise not at all. Some exceptions are possible ofcourse, but that's a detail.

As such, I'm not sure if this database is a good thing or not, it would depend on its exact implementation. Maybe some other slasdot readers will know more details.

Re:What's going on

[Bombur]

While teachers may not have a per se access to the database, I am quite sure there will be ways for those interested to get a look. e.g. will the principal have access?

Re:What's going on

[magicsquid]

So I hope this is not interpreted as a terrible invasion of privacy - all the information is already collected by local governments.

You hope that this is not interpreted as a terrible invasion of privacy? Just because the data is already collected?

It IS a terrible invasion of privacy. Right now. Whether they are collecting new data or not has no bearing. It's an invasion RIGHT NOW and will only get worse.

Judgement day...

[csplinter]

In the year 2036 lucht-net goes sentient.

Re:Judgement day...

[Jedyte]

The funny thing is, in Belgium, our main ISP is indeed called Skynet.

Re:Judgement day...

[csplinter]

haha thats great

Potential for exhortion/blackmail?

[_tognus]

If these records are as exhaustive as they seem to be, what are the risks of blackmail?

High, IMO.

Re:Potential for exhortion/blackmail?

[pahles]

And who are you going to blackmail then? Like said in other posts, there are already databases filled with data, but they just aren't coupled. How will coupling them raise the risk of blackmail?

The true use..

[BlackMesaLabs]

1)Get national repository of everyones demographics, from birth to death, catalog everything.

2)Find marketing company

3)PROFIT!!

Re:The true use..

[ciroknight]

1)Get national repository of everyones demographics, from birth to death, catalog everything.

2) Pay crackers to hack into the municipal database, target advertisements specifically to each individual based on their medical and criminal histories.

3)PROFIT!!

fixed.

Re:The true use..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if Google is so happy you're leaking their businessplan ...

Serious Question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think most reasonable people automatically say this is very very bad, but are not really themselves sure of the actual reason. I see alot of fear about the general collection of information, but nobody really has a good, solid, definite reason why it's such a horrendous idea.

Hell, big corporations already do this! It's called a credit score.

Let's say that all this information is completely available to the public. How would that change society? Have you ever considered the benifits of such a system?

Re:Serious Question

[ScrewMaster]

On the other hand ... the presumption that a massive, government funded and maintained database is bad is good. Like any new power that a government attempts to arrogate to itself, it should be questioned and said government should be required to show that there are real public benefits, and that such benefits outweigh the drawbacks.

That's in an ideal world, of course.

Re:Serious Question

[WinterSolstice]

Ummm... yes. I have. And personally, I don't want a credit score, and I sure as hell don't want any MORE national databases. Governments have proven to be as incompetent and evil and corporations. Why should they be PAID (it *is* our money, after all) to track this?

People seem to act like the government is in charge. The whole point of governments in general is to take care of the stuff that individuals can't do alone. Sewer, water, streets, armies, etc. If the Dutch want such a system, good. If not, that can be fixed. Sometimes the fixes are quiet, sometimes not.

-WS

including health, education, family...

[bashibazouk]

THC in the blood stream...

Re:including health, education, family...

[John Betonschaar]

THC in the blood stream...

Big deal...

Can someone enlighten me...

[jkrise]

why no country has attempted to do this sort of thing? For the entire world, there could be only 6 billion records - a single nation would need to have less than a billion - maybe a few million for most countries.

What can be the security implications for storing things like name, date of birth, sex, present address, etc. for all citizens? It's amazing that in these days of hi-tech gadgets and advances in storage, such elementary data is not available OR not reliably accurate.

Even population estimates have a more than 10% error rate for most nations. How can we plan for social welfare and emergency relief when we don't have accurate data? Amazing, really...

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[Philip K Dickhead]

Previous story on /. was entitled: Unintended Consequences

Theoretically, in the US there is a presumption of a right to privacy in the Constitution. Even the Roberts hearings today gave no hint of a reversal on this one...

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[ciroknight]

Nobody has attempted it yet because it is very shaky ground to step upon. What anyone could do with this kind of centralized information is nightmarish, and at the same time it seems like such an obvious idea.

Imagine if you would, a worse case scenario taking place where the Nazi's would have a municipal database pointing them to every Jew in their country. Do you think it would have been possible for any of them to escape? Or how about here in America; track every Mexican person that ever crossed a border to try to give their child citizenship and a good future, and deport the ones with "the worse history", be it based on criminal records or genetic profiling.

You would think in a civilized world, people wouldn't need to do any of these things, and yet, they still happen, even today. With terrorism being a hot-button issue, imagine what an anti-terrorist country could do with a database of every known terrorist, who they are related to, who they've come into contact to.. the murder and detention would be madness to think about.

With great power comes great responsibility. The Dutch obviously think that their politicial climate is primed for such responsibility, that their socioeconomic pressure is great enough for a need for this kind of system to be in place. While it could do great good for welfare systems, great good for making sure no young students "fall through the cracks", great good for those families who are broken apart by sex offenders, this same system has the overwhelming potential for the bad.

I wouldn't mind it as much if it were an opt-in system; if these files were created as the person came to age and had the ability to register what they were doing by entering into a database where anyone could know anything they needed to know with a few clicks. I wouldn't mind as much because Pedophiles couldn't abuse this. I wouldn't mind as much because people would have choice. But starting them at birth is like The Matrix or Gattica; no escape from the system unchanged.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[jcr]

why no country has attempted to do this sort of thing?

Oh, but they have! Look for "Stasi" on wikipedia.

-jcr

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[ciroknight]

If you're going to make an obscure reference to Nazi Germany that's not likely to be understood by many people, and then refer us to an offsite location for explaination, at least have the courtesy of making it a clicky link ;)

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[Iloinen Lohikrme]

Actually nazis used municipal records to identify and locate jews when they invided the Dutch. Before the WW2 the Dutch govermant had most advanced system on keeping records of it citizens. When nazis took over the country, they used this system for their benefit. That's the reason why so large percentage (75%) of Netherlanding jews died (104000 out of 140000).

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[ciroknight]

Wow, more truth to the post than even I knew. How disturbing. The things they don't teach you in high school...

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lemme guess, American? Ignorance is bliss.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[jcr]

Nazi Germany?

Not too sharp on your history there, are you?

The really sad thing is that you think it was an obscure reference. People really need to pay more attention.

-jcr

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[ciroknight]

POST-Nazi. Okay people, it's 4 in the AM, I made an error. Get off your horses and back onto the point. It is an obscure point; I don't remember it ever being taught in my schooling. I retract my statement in full, and I hope that people DIDNT find the link as a helpful thing because everyone knows I obviously didn't get a chance to read it before i hit the post button. Thanks for being a prick.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[morie]

You might want to read your own link. Furthermore, Stasi is not that obscure (maybe it is a proximity issue, I'm already on the same side of the atlantic as they were)

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[ciroknight]

Thanks for your oh so insightful post, but you've been beaten to the jab of torturing me for the fact that slashdot doesn't have an edit button to add a 5 letter addition in the front of the word "nazi", namely being "post-".

secondly, I have already said these very same words 3 times, and it's getting really old. my guess is that there will be 10 more people at least to correct me tonight, and I will just yawn and go to sleep like I should have an hour ago.

Thirdly, it really must be a proximity issue, because 3 non-americans have corrected me, but yet nary a single one has. I was personally never taught anything about the Stasi in school; more emphasis was put on WWII and what happened during it, less on what happened after it. One would think France, Germany and Italy disappeared from the face of the globe if you heard my history professor.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[hcdejong]

Correct! We still have this system, the 'Bevolkingsregister' ("citizens' registry"). When I move to a new town, I'm required to register my new address at the local town hall. This is used for taxation, issuing passports and driver's licenses, the military draft used to be based on it, etc.
It contains at least links to my birth record, marriage certificate, my current address, and my Social Security number (a unique ID number).

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[morie]

as you may have seen, I applogised for being redundant already :-)

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[meadowsp]

So you were never taught about the cold war? Seems a little suprising, it wasn't that long ago really.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[meadowsp]

If it's opt-in then the people who are abusing their children are hardly likely to register on it.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[ciroknight]

But at least their rights have been maintained. I don't like saying that because it sounds like an endorsment for child abuse, but the truth is that your rights are more important than being politically correct all of the time.

Your comment is kind of a loaded one; "so, when did you stop beating your wife" sort of comment. Some people find that spanking their children is well within their rights. The government morally has to stand up to those same people and say when enough is enough, and when spanking becomes beating. Thus, people who spank are less likely to use the system as well.

People not opting into the system should obviously flag concerns about the system as a whole. Of course, there are always criminals; people that break bail, that break probation, people who feel outside the law. But you're going to get that even with a manditory registration, it just won't be as obvious; "you had your child at home and didn't tell anyone until today, when you tried to register him for school? good heavens woman are you daft?" And blunders like that one will have to be addressed.

I could continue arguing this point, but I feel I'm drumming to a deaf ear.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[ciroknight]

Hell, my school barely went into any detail at all about Vietnam or Korea, nor Desert Storm, but Luckily my grandfather and in the latter, my father, served in those wars to get perspective.

The "cold war", to say, was not something at all taught by our school. As most of the information is classified, and as it's slowly making its way into textbooks, I would hope the current generation will learn a lot more about it, but, unfortunately, I was a victim of a small budget school (yes, a victim; nothing worse than a terrible basis education for a higher education to be built on..)

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[jcr]

The Stasi was the bureacracy that carried out the oppression of half of Germany for about fifty years. That's about as obscure as, oh, the Cultural Revolution.

-jcr

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[Eivind]

What can be the security implications for storing things like name, date of birth, sex, present address, etc. for all citizens?

There are quite a few concerns. Nevertheless quite a few countries has systems like this. All the Scandinavian countries for example. Here everyone gets a unique identity-number at birth (your birthdate plus a 5-digit uniqifier) this is explicitly *NOT* a secret or half-secret like the braindead US SSN.

There's a state-register that has this number linked to name, adress marital status and date of birth (nothing more). The advantage is that you only have to report moving to one register, not like say in Germany at moving you have to separately report your new adress to like half a dozen different stately organisations, each with their own register.

Having many separate registers cause a high risk of error or discrepancy. Many people forget or "forget" to inform some of the registers of a new adress, a marriage, a new child or whatever.

It also causes a fucking enormous papermill and bureaucrazy, which is inefficient. For example, here are the procedure for reporting a new child born in a hospital, by married parents, in Norway and Germany:

Norway:

• Show up at the birth-station, bringing some sort of ID for the woman.
• After the birth, sign the form they have for you. Optionally fill in your account-number to get the stately child-money directly transfered to your account. (if you don't do this you get checks in the mail instead)

Germany (simplified!!!):

• Show up at the birth-station bringing some sort of ID for the woman.
• After the birth, sign the 3 forms they show you, keep one, let them take care of the 2 others.
• From "standesamt" get 2 copies of your marriage-certificate" (yes, you need to do this even if it's the same dept as the next step)
• With the 2, go to "Standesamt", get 5 birth-certificates for your child.
• Deliver birth-certificate 1 to the "einwohnermeldeamt", also marriage-certificate 1. Get "meldebescheinigung in [i-cant-remember] how many copies.
• Send birth-certificate 2 to your health-insurer.
• Send birth-certificate 3 to the church, if you're a member (if not you can drop this step.)
• Go to Arbeidsamt and apply for "kindergeld", you'll need half a dozen papers for this in addition to the meldebescheinigung and birth-certificate, mostly stuff like your work-contract and/or income-statement from last year, the same for your partner offcourse.
• Wait a few weeks until you get the kindergeld.
• Go to jugendamt and apply for "erziehungsgeld", you can't do this before you've got the "kindergeld" because you need the status of that application as one of around half a dozen papers for this step.

This sounds incredible, but really, I'm positive I forgot a step or two on the german side.

Anyone tell me this is effective. Even if they do have concerns about the various departments sharing info, how about atleast allowing it on explicit permission. The form in the hospital could have a checkbox giving this permission to those that checked it.

Other procedures are similarily burthersome. When I moved here and got a stay and work permit, aswell as marrying, this lead to no less than *5* different copies of my passport being stored by various (noncommunicating) governmental agencies, all housed in the same building. That's beyond ridiculous.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments have killed more people than any other institution. We spent the better half of the last 100 years fighting governments that comitted mass murder on a scale never before seen. There is such a lack of accoutability w.r.t. politicians and bureuacrats that fraud, waste and abuse on the part of government grows with increasing size of the government. Since the governemnt writes and enforces the laws this problem cannot be worse in another institution. The idea of empowering them further, giving government the ability to see into and control more of our lives, takes away the citizens ability to insulate herself/himself from the corruption, fraud, waste and abuse prevelent in government. This seems to be the elephant in the room. In history, the more control over the citizens life a government has had, the more people it killed and the less accountability those responsible for the killing have had.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[dim5]

For the entire world, there could be only 6 billion records - a single nation would need to have less than a billion - maybe a few million for most countries.

They tried to do this a few years back, but nobody could agree on whether to use bigint or guid for the primary key.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if you would, a worse case scenario taking place where the Nazi's would have a municipal database pointing them to every Jew in their country.

The bad thing in that situation is not the database. The bad thing in that situation is genocide.

Or how about here in America; track every Mexican person that ever crossed a border to try to give their child citizenship and a good future, and deport the ones with "the worse history", be it based on criminal records or genetic profiling.

The bad thing in that situation is not the database. The bad thing in that situation is deporting citizens.

For everybody's talk of "nightmarish situations", I have yet to hear a single actual nightmarish situation that is actually a result of a database like this. I could make similar arguments to yours against something as benign as water. What if a maniac went around drowning every baby he could find? Obviously it's water that enabled him to do it! Better ban water!

It works for your situations too. Hitler was voted into power. Without voting, he couldn't have committed genocide. Better ban voting. Without criminal records, you couldn't deport people with a Mexican heritage who repeatedly break the law. Better ban criminal records. Or better ban naturalisation.

I'm sorry, but your argument seems to boil down to "the government should be bureaucratic because if it operated efficiently, if it turned evil, it would be evil in an efficient manner". That's a silly argument.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[symbolic]

With great power comes great responsibility.

And I'd only argue that responsibility comes with accountability- at least as far as government is concerned. If you aren't accountable, there's no reason to be responsible. Now, try making someone in government accountable for something, and see how far you get.

Re:Can someone enlighten me...

[Spectra72]

It's amazing how people's view of history is starting to change. It's almost as if WWII happened but then nothing else occured for 50 years until the Berlin Wall fell. Then...peace, love and happiness through the 90's (nothing bad happened in the 90's right?) until that evil GWB came to power.

People sort of remember the Soviets as "bad", but not much else unless they actually had to live under their thumb. (Polish people remember very well, Dutch? not so much). People think the US created and supported Israel for 50 years but forget that the US had Israel under a serious arms embargo for decades (why do you think early Arab/Israel Wars had the Israelis flying French Mirage Jets?) and that Eisenhower opposed the trio of Britain, France and Israel during the Suez Crisis.

Very little mention is given to how Europe divested themselves of their colonies after WWII. We know about India (Ghandi and all that) but little mention is made about how poorly things were handled in Africa by Britain, France and Belgium in particular. Vietnam is thought of almost exclusively as an American issue. Algiers? What's that?

Iran/Iraq are US problems now, but very little attention given to how Britain and Russia used that region as pawns in their Great Game of the 19th Century. No mention of how Iran respected Americans so much that they invited Americans to run their Finance Ministry on multiple occasions, in the hopes that an American could stop the British from stealing all the oil profits.

We are starting to see a generation of people come on the Internet that only know the Cold War via anteseptic history books. What's that quote about forgetting the past and being doomed to repeat it?

Curse or Blessing?

[RAMMS EIN]

The blurb (and TFA) are a bit misleading. They suggest that Dutch citizens will now be tracked ``from cradle to grave'', whereas they hadn't been before.

In reality, what's happening is that schools, police, and various organizations for the protection of children, psychiatric institutions, etc. are already doing this tracking.

What's changing is that they will now exchange information about which kids have caused or otherwise been in trouble.

The rationale is that by improving communication between these institutions, kids can be more adequately helped. For example, a school can receive information from a child protection institution that says the child is having trouble at home, and link that to the fact that the child is often missing from school.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[putko]

I can imagine that if someone starts with bad behavior, it might build over time. This system would allow authorities to detect it.

E.g. Little Ballmer pushes around chairs in pre-school. Says bad words like "poopy" and "butt".

Teenage Ballmer: rips flies apart, but also throws chairs, says "pussy" and "fuck".

CEO Ballmer: scares the bejeezus out of a nice employee, calls Eric Schmidt a "pussy" and says he'll kill him. Throws chairs for effect.

If they had a database like that showing that from age 4 or so he engaged in violent, aggressive and just plain nasty behavior, it would help to build a case against him.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[pe1chl]

This system is not intended to track bad behavior of the child, but to detect bad behavior against the child.
So it is not a record of what he did in school, but what possible child-abuse has been reported about him.

This still could be of use in later life, but not in the way it is pinctured above.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[koekepeer]

you got them EXACTLY right. it's coupling of existing databases, with several restrictions to make sure the risk for abuse and privacy invasion is as small as possible.

hold your horses, conspiracy theorists! the Netherlands are not a fascist state. they are in fact one of the most, if not the most, liberal countries in the world.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[E8086]

"This still could be of use in later life"

Until years later someone makes the generalization that abused children are going to abuse children later in life and they become suspects for abuse they may not commit. Capt Braxton, you are under arrest for crimes your going to commit -Voyager
Not a direct quote and it's the only example I can think of at the momment. It's like locking people up or putting them under surveillance before they had the chance to do anything wrong because their genetic profile is similar to lots of convicted violent felons. Punishing the potentially guilty, the way of the future, along with outlawing lawyers by 2015.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[RAMMS EIN]

``hold your horses, conspiracy theorists! the Netherlands are not a fascist state. they are in fact one of the most, if not the most, liberal countries in the world.''

Maar probeer dat maar eens aan een amerikaan aan z'n verstand te brengen. :-/

On the other hand, the netherlands is something like second on the list in terms of how much wiretapping the government does. That's not necessarily a good thing...

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[koekepeer]

"Maar probeer dat maar eens aan een amerikaan aan z'n verstand te brengen. :-/"

toch blijven proberen, he ;^)

"On the other hand, the netherlands is something like second on the list in terms of how much wiretapping the government does. That's not necessarily a good thing..."

i wonder how we know that NL would be the second on this list. is it because they are, or because they are not being as secretive about the amount of wiretapping they do as compared to some other countries?

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[kryten_nl]

Not a direct quote and it's the only example I can think of at the momment.

Did you miss 'Minority Report'? You lucky basterd.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[Anonymous Coward]

"For example, a school can receive information from a child protection institution that says the child is having trouble at home"

Do I want that ? On my own schools I've had at least 3 teachers that where, to say the least, "different". One had no qualms about, in class with all other kids around paying attention, to (snickeringly) tell them what he saw me, off of school grounds & times, doing (carving my initials in a tree). And why ? Because he didn't like, at that time, my (as far as I can remember) honest question about the subject he was trying to teach ....

Do I want to have that kind of people to know more about my personal life ? Not on your life !

P.s.
On the other hand : I allso have had a teacher that was the opposite of the above, a real father-figure.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[bobbyw]

That's a good explaination, except for the fact that gradution isn't held in a coffin. Eighty five year old men arn't getting in trouble in school anymore, there is no need for this system.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[Riktov]

Well then why don't we just get rid of all records: criminal records, driving records, school grades, employee evaluation records?

All you're saying is that chronological records of past events can be used to predict future behavior, and these predictions can be abused to assume, without justification, that such predictions _will_ come true.

Re:Curse or Blessing?

[E8086]

"Did you miss 'Minority Report'?"

Never got around to seeing it

It is inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

Information is power and power is corrupting.

To hand over such a wide and vast array of names, locations, places, births, lives, and deaths seems to cry to me of Neo-Communist or Fascist ideals.

Think about it. This is about the same situation that is presented in 1984 by George Orwell and I believe this would be the first step to a much larger, scarier and indeed more powerful Big Brother.

Finally, there is -no- such thing as -secure- data. This data WILL be leaked at some point in time, or someone will figure out how to extract things from the database without being caught.

There is already a nonexistant undercurrent for pedophiles and information of vulnerable children. Selling this kind of information speaks of a new Black Market; the Black Market of information, revised second edition.

Worse still, the situation could be even more far removed than anyone could perceive at this moment. Imagine this kind of a system implemented with such a thing like RFID. The numbers would make it easy for the government to follow Citizen #4032892, who learned of a few corrupt politians in the immediate government, was going to cry wolf, and was deemed to be 'silenced' in such a way that no-one would know it was the Government.

Regardless of whether or not this was intended as a 'good' or a 'bad' solution to the world's troubles, any centralized database of information will be broken into, stolen from, and immediately prone to the scrutiny of those who do not wish to be kept record in it due to its inherent security.

True also, this system would work nicely for things like medicinal and social purposes, but the potential for bad is far worse than equal to the potential for good.

Whereas the good effects of this system are only brought out through using something else other than the database, evil needs only information to thrive.

I believe that this is going to be a terrible folly on humanity's part. Also, this could be the first step to a much darker reality. When the government of your nation knows who you are, knows what you're doing, and knows everything about you, if you do anything to upset them, they have all the resources in the world to kill you outright before your 'radical' ideas spread.

Even worse, since it is a centralized, 'trusted' databse, the government could forge information on that person saying that his parents were terrorists and he was following in the same vein according to terrorist documents and bombs of various makes in his home [which were planted, of course].

Welcome to the Secure Future! Where if you believe ANYTHING you own is secure, you're a @#)(@NAin' looney.

I suspect that either people will realize the inherent flaws and reject the design or see to shallowly and never realize the potential for great evil within the slumbering beast masquerading as a gentle cat.

-James C. Woodall,
Author

Re:It is inevitable

[blahplusplus]

The problem is regardless, the military and intelligence agencies already do things like this anyway without public knowledge. The big thing is that technology is driving Orwellian wet dreams, the more we use technology the less control we have over a lot of our personal information (i.e. having a cell phone you can be tracked, same with bank card, visa, etc).

Also you dont even have to put the knowledge into one database, you can have organizations that have legal access to all databases and hire smart guys to make analyzing software that links disparate data together.

Yeh but

[Anonymous Coward]

The dutch also have progressive ideas on many concepts such as drug prohibition and prostitution.

Funny how their radical ideas don't seem to inflict great harm on their society though.

Re:Yeh but

[Frans Faase]

Yes, really funny, and we are not even getting close to 0.7% of the population being jailed, as in the United States of America. But yes, in the United States you can get in jail for some years if you accidently let a friend stay over for one night who was caught the next day with some drugs in his pocket (and if you do not have the resources to find a good layer).

Re:Yeh but

[adepali]

Most foreigners seem to have a beautified picture of Holland, especially on the things you mention (drug use and prostitution). I'm a foreigner myself but I've been to Holland and know several people who live there, and the mainstream idea is that these 'experiments' have failed, and their result is a degeneration of society. This, and the problems with muslim radicalism, has resulted to a great increase of conservative thinking; the recent shut down of most pot shops is just one sign of that. I don't think we should discard an action like the monitoring of every citizen, which otherplace would be reson for major public outcry, just because 'the Dutch are basically nice people and they should know'.

Re:Yeh but

[VON-MAN]

The mainstream idea is that the "experiments" have failed and the result...

I don't know what circles you move in, but this is not the mainstream but the conservative meme you're echoing here. Almost every Dutch will also be able to tell you that the Netherlands has the lowest drugs deaths in Europe. Germany has for instance 6 times more drug users per capita and 45(!) times more drug deaths, the United States has 20 times the number of deaths. The number of youth using cannabis is also lower than France, the UK, Belgium, Ireland and... the United States (go War on Drugs go!). Looks like the "experiments" that we've been doing here for the last 30 years are somewhat successfull.

Re:Yeh but

[Scarblac]

That's not true. We spend less money fighting drugs and have a smaller drugs problem than the rest of Europe. There are some cities that have put limits on the number of 'coffee shops' they wanted in town center, and perhaps a few had to close, but then normal bars and all other businesses are regulated too.

What's popularly regarded as failed is integration of minorites (i.e., muslim immigrants) into our society. There's a big divide there, mutual fear and anger, and the feeling that the values of Dutch society aren't shared by traditional Islam. That's what the big mess in our society right now is. Not a few harmless coffee shops.

Re:Yeh but

[lysium]

"Recent shut down of most pot shops?" What the fuck are you talking about? They are open and thriving. Don't make shit up if you are going to bother posting here.

Re:Yeh but

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

That's Amsterdam. Much of the rest of the country is quite conservative.

"Mr Smith, do you still believe in love?"

[dauthur]

I don't mean to be so terse, but... wasn't there something written about this in 1948 by a wonderful man named George Orwell? I can't possibly think of the name for my life...

come on.

[LackaDaisy]

i'm pretty sure the title should read "netherlands government to Open Electronic Files on Children" i can't help it, it's in my blood.

Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR info

[shanen]

This is just the natural extension of what's been going on over the last few decades, and the movement to the governmental level is just the natural limit. The potential for abuse is enormous--and you can basically rest assured such power over individuals will be abused. Perhaps not so much by the Dutch, who are basically reasonable people (IMO), but there are lots of much less reasonable governments out there.

The operative legal principle should be that our personal information belongs to the individual, and if someone (even someone who works for the government and who "wants to help you") wants to store data about you, they should be required to store that information on YOUR PODS (personally owned data storage). Easy enough to use a checksum to prevent you from modifying the information, but if they want to see it again, they should be required to say why, and you should have the right to agree or disagree to their proposed use of your personal information.

Trivial example, if you want to borrow money from a bank, then the bank would have good reason to query your PODS for information about your financial history. If you don't agree to provide enough information, then the bank is not going to agree to the loan. However, once they've made the decision to loan you the money, they should store the records on your own PODS, and erase most of the personal information at their end. Once you've finished paying off the loan, they'd have no reason to keep any of your personal information (though the records would still be stored on your computer if you want them again, as for another loan).

One more wire

[RAMMS EIN]

...in a country that is at the top of the list in terms of spying on its citizens. And they still can't keep people from getting killed or terrorist groups from forming or entering the country. Let this be a lesson to all you people advocating tougher laws to crack down on terrorism. It just doesn't work.

Remove your tin foil hat

[sangdrax]

Schools are pedaphile's dream, and far easier to access too. The Internet also offers possibilities. Yet we didn't ban them. Geez. Ofcourse the system won't be 100% hack proof. No system can be. It's about the advantages (keeping troubled kids from going unnoticed by the right people) weighing against the disadvantages (chance of system abuse).

Creating this system country-wide for all citizens is probably the future. It's not creating a totally new system: we already have nation-wide systems for national ID, criminal records, taxes etc anyway. They're just not linked, causing everyone headaches and people can abuse *that* as well. And far easier, too.

Also keep in mind that we don't carry this US trauma of the government being evil.

Re:Remove your tin foil hat

[chillmost]

Also keep in mind that we don't carry this US trauma of the government being evil.

You will soon enough.

Re:Remove your tin foil hat

[Rits]

Also keep in mind that we don't carry this US trauma of the government being evil.

You will soon enough.

We already have a bigger government in the Netherlands. We also have dry feet.

Re:Remove your tin foil hat

[Alien Being]

"Also keep in mind that we don't carry this US trauma of the government being evil."

And no trauma from any other evil governments occupying the Netherlands? Imagine if you had this database in the 1940's. Dr. Mengele would have been ecstatic.

Re:Remove your tin foil hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Also keep in mind that we don't carry this US trauma of the government being evil.

Not yet...

Re:Remove your tin foil hat

[GileadGreene]

It's not creating a totally new system: we already have nation-wide systems for national ID, criminal records, taxes etc anyway.

I hate argments like this. It's the same kind of argument that's used to push the USA-PATRIOT act: these aren't new capabilities - we already use them against drug dealers, now we're just expanding to use them against "terrorists" too. No one stops to ask whether the precedent-setting actions against drug dealers (or the precedent-setting government collection of data in your case) was actually right to begin with (in the case of anti-drug laws in the US, most people had no idea that such laws had been passed). Nor is it a valid argument to say "we already do a, b, and c, so there's no harm in doing d". Action d may very well be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.

Re:Remove your tin foil hat

[Anonymous Coward]

Also keep in mind that we don't carry this US trauma of the government being evil.

Ehm... LPF?

Re:Remove your tin foil hat

[Alien Being]

"we already do a, b, and c, so there's no harm in doing d"

"now we're just expanding"

That's what makes for slippery slopes.

What They Don't Tell You Is...

[JohnPerkins]

...that each child will have to carry their own information in a frisbee glued to their backs.

Re:What They Don't Tell You Is...

[csplinter]

I heard about that, I think this is the model they eventually decided on.

Re:What They Don't Tell You Is...

[blincoln]

Sweet!

So in exchange for their privacy, they'll always have the perfect defence and counterattack ready if someone starts slinging
Trac-Balls at them? Sounds like a deal to me.

There are two types of people I can't stand...

[bobobobo]

People who are intolerant of other people's culture.... and the Dutch!

Re:There are two types of people I can't stand...

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Would you like a schmoke and a pancake?

gestapo wtf

[sangdrax]

You mean by opening these files we're only *this* close to the police busting in houses searching for jews and drag them to the gas chamber?

Re:gestapo wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

By keeping detailed files on every citizen "for their own good"?

A system which can later be handily used to flag if they're a Jew or not?

I don't know if it could be considered Nazi as such, but it certainly tends towards the Fascist nature.

Re:gestapo wtf

[WindBourne]

First off, the gestapo did a LOT more than just murdering jews. They spent a lot of time monitoring as many of their citizens as possible. Basically, you did not dare speak out, as the person next to you may very well be SS.

Next, we ARE a lot closer than what we were even a decade ago. Now, that gov. are tracking citizens and listening in their voice and internet coversations, how is that different than what gestapo did to the average german citizen? Likewise, the reason why so many fought against FDR's Social Security was that they were afraid that the SSN could be used in part of a national ID (interestingly, the republican party fought it hard based on that). The more that a gov. tracks and listens, the easier it is for the next one, to extend that further. They all say that is for the "good of the nation" or for "homeland defense".

A good example is China now has forced abortion on women and forced sterilization on both sexes. We are not talking a 1-2 months abortions, but 9 month (ready to deliver). Now, with this kind of tech., how easy will it be for a gov. to say, oh, we know that you are pregnant by listening in on coversations. And yes, if China is doing this now, how soon will other govs. decide to do the same? Perhaps, they have decided that junior there does not have the genetic make-up that is desirable. But of course, we both know that a gov. would NEVER take that step. Right?

And no western gov. would ever spend their effort listening in on all their citizens.

And no western gov. would ever control the press by locking up foreign journalist (say known musleum reporters in a war zone) or allowing their own press to be owned by just a few friendly companies in which the CEO and "moderators" decide what is ok to print/tell/view.

And no western gov. would try to control those who do have intimate knowledge of deals

10 years ago, I would have though ppl crazy for thinking that a DB is bad. Now, In light of what has happened over the last 5 years, I have changed my mind.

Re:gestapo wtf

[sangdrax]

I would rather be concerned for countries which do execute people and do drag people to camps without judge or trail "for national security" and do invade foreign nations to expand their sphere of influence, all covered with a thick layer of propaganda and national pride. *That* is I call tending towards Fascistic nature.

But linking information that's already being gathered for decades without problems? That is, except the problems of unlinked databases, which stopped us from preventing several children from being murdered by their own parents recently.. How does wanting to prevent that even come remotely close to creating WW2 like scenarios?

It's the public consensus that creates WW2 like scenarios, not governments creating systems which could theoretically be abused if they really wanted to. They don't need new systems to be able to abuse them. You have to make sure they don't want to, thats the key.

Re:gestapo wtf

[igb]

You would expect the Dutch to be slightly more attuned to this. The roundups in 1942 were massively aided by the Dutch census of 1937, which included religious affiliation. And massive collaboration by the police and civil service, of course, but few European countries reacted to roundups of Jews with anything other than enthusiasm. It's instructive to note how few Dutch Jews survived the war with how many Danish Jews did. In Denmark, there wasn't a population register with religion on it, and the civil service behaved impeccably.

ian

Re:gestapo wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, the gestapo did a LOT more than just murdering jews. They spent a lot of time monitoring as many of their citizens as possible. Basically, you did not dare speak out, as the person next to you may very well be SS.

Maybe the Stasi is an even better comparison.

Re:gestapo wtf

[bustersnyvel]

Now, that gov. are tracking citizens and listening in their voice and internet coversations, how is that different than what gestapo did to the average german citizen?

The difference is the action that is being taken. With the Gestapo, you could get killed for venting your thoughts. No way that this is going to happen by action of the Dutch government.

I think the protection of children is a good thing. Personally, I'm against the right to have children as defined now. I think everybody should have the right to have children, but only after having done a course in raising a kid.

Personally, if I would have to give up a little privacy in order to give one kid a better life, I think it's worth it. If you look at the raising criminality and drug use among kids in The Netherlands, I think paying more attention to them wouldn't hurt anyone. Many parents don't do that nowadays - pay proper attention to their kids I mean.

Then again, given the current situation of The Netherlands, I think our government has much better ways of spending their money.

Re:gestapo wtf

[ShakaUVM]

>10 years ago, I would have though ppl crazy for
>thinking that a DB is bad. Now, In light of what
>has happened over the last 5 years, I have changed
>my mind.

Odd. 10 years ago it was already a horrendous idea. It's not like security has significantly changed for the better or worse in the meantime.

Re:gestapo wtf

[iawia]

It's not the unlinked databases that 'stopped us from preventing several children being murdered'. It's simply incompetence of the organisations that are supposed to protect those children.

The cases that have been in the media in the last year (which are just a few examples, as 1 to 2 children *a week* are killed by abuse in the Netherlands!) are cases where the family was already under control of a child protection agency. The situation was known to the 'gezinsvoogd' (custodian? it's the person assigned responsibility over a child by the judge when there are serious problems) but they didn't react, or at least not very effectively.

The reasons this system doesn't work are simple:

1) The safety of the child is not a priority. In most of the agencies there is a huge pressure to make sure the child stays with the parents. Even if the parents have repeatedly physically abused the child! The reason given for this is that it is better for the psycologicaldevelopment of the child to stay with its parents. True, but first things first, please...

2) History is disregarded. Parents from who children have been taken because of abuse are allowed to keep their other children. Apparently this is a 'different relationship'. Go figure.

3) The organisations charged with protection of the children are both inadequately funded, and inadequately run. There is usually no clear structure or guidelines on how to deal with different cases, no place to get expert help (ie. no child psycologists available, and no budget to go to an external expert), no rules on how to keep records, even!

Fixing these problems is not done by linking databases. It's done by reorganisation of the system, and proper regard for children's safety as *the* primary requirement.

Re:gestapo wtf

[idokus]

Just like getting in to a slipery slope. Some 20 years ago, perhaps 25 years ago we all got a tax number somewhat like the ssn in the US. This was only possible on the strict promise it would limited to use of financial data, for tax purposes and only that. This was a public demand, just because of the gestapo reasoning.

Recently our Dutch government has made the decision to create a personal identification number just to gather personal data, like who's lending which books in the library.

This to illustrate how intentions can change on these subjects.

The reason for these changes is to fight terrorism. Yay for our (Dutch) government and our allies.

I'm just wondering how long it would take for them to create a red flag system based on this system, to include data about what books they might read, and when it will be used against you.

How long will it take for our government to reason, if you're not with us, you're against us, and therefor a terrorist.

Re:gestapo wtf

[DataCannibal]

If the cases in the Netherlands are anything like the cases that have been cited here in the UK as the reasons for us having a National Childrens Database, then it was not the "linking of information that's already been gathered" that would have prevented the deaths but people doing their jobs properly.

I'd be very surprised if it was any different in NL.

Re:gestapo wtf

[ikkedus]

In percentage of the population, most Jews were deported from Holland due to the excellent statistics ad bookkeeping and the eagerly cooperating civil servants. Since 2001 Christian diligence and obsession with doing stuff that's quite unimportant is again as dangerous and destructive as it was in prewar times. Remarkably the government has been in state of collapse several times in the past 30 months, but they keep repairing hemselves like a malicious cancer.

Re:gestapo wtf

[BananaPeel]

"I would rather be concerned for countries which do execute people and do drag people to camps without judge or trail "for national security" and do invade foreign nations to expand their sphere of influence, all covered with a thick layer of propaganda and national pride. *That* is I call tending towards Fascistic nature" Yep sound like a good description of the way many modern democracies are trending and that really the problem with this kind of a database. These things are fine, although I would question if they are truly useful, while you have a benign government. However if and when the government decides to become more controlling, say in the case of pandemic or oil shortage. Then they may not take to criticism too kindly and may start using these databases to suppress the dissent. Fully interlinked databases covering every aspect of people interaction with government can be very powerful. But the power comes mainly form the ability to track the individual and prove when the individual is no abiding by a limited subset of laws. This subset tends to exclude social interactions and so is pretty useless at preventing crime and is only as good as the people that feed it the information in terms of spotting abuse. A point which it is worth bearing in mind is that a certain level of abuse/death/crime is tolerated by society in exchange for freedom. For sure you can reduce these by creating further laws etc but only really at the loss of freedom. So if these things are important to you you have to ask how much freedom do you want to lose in exchange for reducing any of these banes.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Namespace Full]

You would expect the Dutch to be slightly more attuned to this.

You would, except that the morons that lead us don't get it and the voters don't either. They fail to see the link between ever expanding government powers and a fascist state. Every year on remembrance day, people from our government march to the monuments to exclaim with a tear in their eye and a strangled sob that the holocaust should never be forgotten. Then they go home and work on organizing the next one.

The problem is that even the "good" people in government never realise that THEY are the danger. They keep on extending laws trying to fight things they consider threatening, not realising that they are creating the worst threat themselves. It was the german government that started WW2, not a "terrorist", not Marinus van der Lubbe and not a sex offender (actually, I'm not familiar with Hitler's habits on that front so I can't be sure).

Re:gestapo wtf

[cherokee158]

Just a footnote: China's society is largely rural and relatively corrupt, so the degree to which the "one child" edict is enforced is debatable. This is a law that is routinely bent, as well as containing numerous exceptions. (If the first child is a girl, or handicapped, they may try again, for example) In any event, poor access to contraception and lack of education are causing as many abortions as government policy. The adoption of ultrasound equipment means that many abortions are sex selective (favoring the productive males). Despite the new techno wrinkles, these sorts of infanticide have been practiced by many societies for centuries.

It's problematical to build an Orwellian information society when you are struggling to bring electricity to half of your country. Don't blame information for China's problems. Blame medieval attitudes about childbirth.

Re:gestapo wtf

[sangdrax]

Fixing these problems is not done by linking databases. It's done by reorganisation of the system, and proper regard for children's safety as *the* primary requirement.

The biggest problem here is finding the right criteria for taking the children away from their parents. Take away too few, and you end up with deaths, even if the agencies visit the family frequently. Take away too many, and you'll surely get a public outcry. If the safety of the child is the main priority, you can say 'we cannot afford to take chances' and end up letting the government take away and raise many children fitting a weak profile. Child's safety first. Also, it suddenly makes the government (politically) responsible for the actions of the parents: the government should have taken the child away if its abused. It's not a slippery slope, it's a direct consequence of saying 'the safety of the children is our primary concern'. If the child isn't safe, the government failed.

So what is the primary concern? It is finding a balance between the freedom in raising your own kids and being responsible for your behaviour, and the children's safety. A balance, because both extremes have undesirable consequences. Clear guidelines are indeed essential.

A clear and global view makes clear guidelines possible. It is essential to make informed decisions. A better record of the past, observations made by various people (doctors, police, whatever) put together help do this. Being able to keep the child you abuse merely because you move to another city is inexcusable. Not being able to prevent a child's death just because agencies didn't inform each other properly, is inexcusable too. Creating a system which collects the relevant information and can alarm the proper agencies, is a structural way to solve both.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Bimo_Dude]

You are correct in that security has not changed much in the last ten years, and that ten years ago it was already a horrendous idea. IMHO, we are no less or more secure than we were then.

What has changed, though, is that the potential for the abuse of such a database has dramatically increased in the time period. These changes have been taking place slowly and methodically over the last 20 years at least, through legislation. While we have been distracted by sports, reality-tv, and celeb breast exposures, the congress/senate/administrations have been changing the laws to erode the rights of the average (non-wealthy) citizen.

* Please note that this comment is US-centric; I cannot speak regarding any other countries.

Re:gestapo wtf

[iawia]

Well, I did say 'proper' :-)

But the point I was trying to make is that though it is nive to have the goal of having every child stay with its parents, this should not have a higher priority that protecting the child from abuse. And currently that is often the case.
Or better: there is no rule or guideline that says otherwise, and the decision is left entirely to the guardian, who are more inclined to go for the 'softer' approach of coaching the parents. Which is good, but only after the child is safe.

Again, in some of the cases that have been in the media lately, the guardian (gezinsvoogd) already knew of the situation, but had the child returned to it's parent(s) or left a child with parents whose other children had already been removed (to protect them from abuse).

My point in all this is that if the actions taken on existing, known data are such as these, having more data won't fix the problem.

And that's apart from the whole privacy concern that you can find in this discussion elsewhere. I think that's an important point, but mostly I think that this is a fix for the wrong problem.

Re:gestapo wtf

[FST777]

I wholeheartedly agree with you here (I'm Dutch too), but the linking of the databases is one of the steps taken to reorganize the system. They are going to force several organizations to keep track of each other.

The priority still lies with keeping the children with their parents for as long as this does not harm the child. When there has been abuse, all should be done to prevent the abuse. When that is not possible, the child will be moved to a foster home.

Another newsflash from this department: there is a shortage of foster homes because a lot more children are moved from their parents. So the tendency seems to be going in the 'right' direction.

As for linking the databases: there is a HUGE difference between putting all the information you can get in one huge database and linking all the information you already have gathered. So no gestapo-stories please...
They should put some huge safety requirements on the system though.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

You're right in what you say - the US is (for all their talk of "t3h fr33d0mZ!!!!!1111!") far closer to becoming a fascist state than the Netherlands currently is.

Read The 14 Characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt - the USA hits every single point square-on, with the possible exception of point 5 (rampant sexism), although the paper goes on to clarify "opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy", so maybe half a point then.

However, by instituting a system such as the Netherlands', they make it much easier to start monitoring their citizens and restricting civil liberties in the future - all you need is to not stop updating the database after the child passes 18, and you've got some of the scariest bits of 1984 right there.

Short version: The US is far further down the track, but the Netherlands just massively upgraded how fast they can catch up.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

"The difference is the action that is being taken. With the Gestapo, you could get killed for venting your thoughts. No way that this is going to happen by action of the Dutch government."

Currently.

Ten years ago in USA you couldn't be arrested, detained without trial, denied even minimal Geneva Convention protections and tortured and abused without restitution merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And the USA was widely regarded as the shining example of representative democracy and civil liberties to the entire world.

Your point?

Re:gestapo wtf

[Egregius]

What people outside of the Netherlands (and inside as well!) fail to realise is that child protection in the Netherlands is still in the stone ages. Sure, we have enough people looking after children, but the problem is that they're spread in 25+ different organisations! So the problem is not people not doing their job, it's people being unable to do their job effectively in the framework they're put in.

It's really no surprise to see agencies losing children. I remember seeing a documentary about a certain city in the US, I forgot which, where they had an experiment running integrating all the agencies involved. Every morning, a local child-cop, someone for the medical branch (hospitals see a lot of broken arms of children and certain types of bruises), someone for child-care in general, someone for social welfare etc. all come together in a meeting, and discuss what they've noticed recently. Then they see if other agencies know more about the specific case.

Compare this to Holland, where the justice department finds out in their ante-delictum investigation that someone at the hospital noticed some weird lacerations when the child came in once, and that a local cop (Dutch have a unique concept called district cop) had heard rumors, but noone every communicated this to others.

There was one time an effort at the local level of government to experiment with the above-mentioned systm of regular gatherings of representatives of all child-protection involved agencies. All involved agencies thought it was a good idea, but none of the specialised and splintered agencies wanted to cede part of their funding to another new agency for that. So it never happened.

The best thing that could've happened was intervention from above local level (provincial or national) to start such a project in one region first, then nationally afterwards. But that wasn't likely to happen given the current political situation (the only attention being given to child-protection being incidental, which is called the 'Nova-effect' here in Holland, named after the primetime news show Nova, because every time Nova discusses some issue in-depth, politicians suddenly pay attention to that issue).

So instead we got the second-best thing: a national database that keeps track of incidence-records. Yes, that means someone actually paying attention to bad stuff happening to children. That some of the Slashdot crowd instantly fling about nazi-references I find very disturbing..and yet telling.

Re:gestapo wtf

[operagost]

Britt bent his data to fit his hypothesis. Why else would characteristic 3 include "terrorists" as a scapegoat when the regimes he allegedly used for the study never focused on such a group? And since when is being a terrorist-- by definition someone who kills, steals, and destroys to force an agenda-- defensible? Are terrorists victims now? Lumping terrorists in with ethnic minorities and "liberals" (nice one, Larry) is suspect.

Also, scratch number 4 (after all, the liberals keep telling me we didn't allocate enough troops to Iraq or Afghanistan originally and that costs money), number 6 (please point out the state-sponsored censorship in the NYT, LA Times, or Air America Radio), and number 10 (haven't seen troops breaking up strikes lately). The rest could conceivably be argued by some radicals.

Re:gestapo wtf

[operagost]

Geez, you're really trolling today. *PLONK* into the Foe bucket.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Ihlosi]

Why else would characteristic 3 include "terrorists" as a scapegoat when the regimes he allegedly used for the study never focused on such a group?

Of course the Nazis hunted "commie terrorists", just that back then the word "terrorist" was not in general use yet.
According to them, eeeevul commie terrorists for example set the parliament on fire. Is setting the parliament on fire "terroristic" enough to qualify as terrorism ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

Re:gestapo wtf

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

Danish Jew population before the war: a few thousand
Dutch Jew population before the war: a few hundreds of thousand.

The danish resistance had the convient luck that neutral Sweden was only 30 odd miles away over water. The ferried most of them over in one(!) night.

Yes, I'm dutch, yes my grandparents, greatgrandparents maybe didn't do everything they could to save the jews, but this comparison with Denmark, I've heard it before, and it's just too easy.

Re:gestapo wtf

[scaryjohn]

I'm a bit of a paranoid libertarian myself, but that link is horseshit. Fascism is a philosophy, not a mystery syndrome. And maybe some people in the Administration do have authoritarian leanings but... even under Dr. Britt's criteria we still fall short, if only by degrees

To say that the U.S. has military supremacy is the most far-fetched of them all. I could only find two cabinet secretaries who had military service listed in their Wikipedia biography: Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson. That's troublesome in its own right, but might explain why there are so many hawks in the Administration. Regardless, when you start getting into fascist military cults... you don't see Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld running around in military uniforms making up medals to give each other like Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, or dare I say it: Hussein's government in Iraq all did.

Again, it's not that I'm not scared: it could happen; we're inching towards it. But what's his face's attempt to force fit fascism into modern American society is a joke.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

Yay! My first Freak!

But seriously, I wasn't trolling, I was attempting to make a serious point:

Merely because the current government in the Netherlands apparently isn't predisposed towards fascist/totalitarian behaviour, that's no reason to hand them the capability without thought.

Allowing the government additional powers isn't merely a question of "will they use it responsibly?".

It's actually a case of "will they, and every single government who comes after them, for the entire conceivable future of the country use these powers responsibly".

I'd submit that no "government" can be trusted for all time, since the people who make up each "government" change every few years, and while it's easy to restrict civil liberties and pass restrctive laws, these measures don't tend to be repealed by anything short of a revolution.

The (admittedly slightly emotive) example of the US was intended to illustrate this point - in the mid-90s you'd have been laughed at to suggest that the current situation would occur within 5-10 years, and yet the US has gone from shining beacon of liberty to the world to an unprecedented crackdown on civil liberties and an unprecedented drop in international esteem.

Apologies if you think I'm trolling, but that wasn't the intention at all. And when your Freaks list is at least as long as your Friends list, maybe you want to re-evaluate that hair-trigger on your killfile ;-)

Re:gestapo wtf

[dajak]

It's instructive to note how few Dutch Jews survived the war with how many
Danish Jews did. In Denmark, there wasn't a population register with religion on
it, and the civil service behaved impeccably.

Impeccable? This is complete bullshit. You are comparing apples and oranges. Denmark never suffered an occupation regime:

"After the German invasion and military occupation on April 9, Denmark became an exception amongst the occupied countries. It formally remained a sovereign state and governed its own affairs, thus differentiating it with regard to international law and the practice of occupation. The situation in Denmark has even been characterized as an "anomaly" in German occupied Europe. This was foremost a consequence of a unique occupation regime. Unlike other countries, Denmark was not put under the control of a German civil or military administration. In theory, and more or less in practice, the basic social, political, and legal situation in Denmark remained intact."

In other words, Denmark was pretty much able to do whatever it wanted as long as it didn't provoke Germany into imposing a stricter occupation regime. Denmark did not defend itself, its government collaborated with the Nazis and never went into exile, and it was never part of the Allies.

In terms of occupation regimes, The Netherlands represents the complete opposite: a Nazi civil occupation regime. It was, like the states in Germany itself, and for instance Austria, and former Prussia in conquered Poland, ruled by a Nazi Gauleiter (Governor), the infamous Austrian Arthur Seyss-Inquart, from the outset. In all areas that were treated as original parts of the First Reich by the Nazis the jews nearly disappeared.

The Netherlands was militarily defeated, its government went into exile, it was at war with the axis nations, it never surrendered its sovereignty to anyone but only most of its terrirory, and the civil administration in the Netherlands was considered clearly illegitimate by the majority of the population.

The intermediate type of regime is represented by for instance northern France and the Balkan countries that merely suffered a German military occupation regime.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Magada]

You'd be surprised to find out how many ex- Gestapo, SD and Kripo agents found gainful employment in the Stasi after the war ended... And I mean immediately after.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

"Britt bent his data to fit his hypothesis."

Do you have any decent evidence to support this hypothesis? I'm not saying he hasn't, merely that your arguments seem deeply flawed, and are therefore no basis to allege such a conclusion.

"Why else would characteristic 3 include "terrorists" as a scapegoat when the regimes he allegedly used for the study never focused on such a group?"

Maybe because back then the word "terrorist" wasn't thrown around with quite such wild abandon as these days? Thesaurus.com gives us such synonyms as "agitator, insurgent, insurrectionist, malcontent, mutineer, nihilist, rebel, revolter, revolutionary" and "anarchist", and these have been used as scapegoats by authority figures since the beginning of time.

It's also interesting that Fascist states seem to have more problems with terrorists than non-fascist states, due primarily to their repressive and authoritarian actions.

"And since when is being a terrorist-- by definition someone who kills, steals, and destroys to force an agenda-- defensible? Are terrorists victims now? Lumping terrorists in with ethnic minorities and "liberals" (nice one, Larry) is suspect."

The point I think he's trying to make is not that these things are acceptable, but that they're scapegoated for things they didn't necessarily do, or their level of threat is wildly exaggerated to permit the authorities to become more repressive and have the population simply accept it.

Scapegoated has a different meaning from "rightly blamed", and scapegoating is always bad.

"Also, scratch number 4 (after all, the liberals keep telling me we didn't allocate enough troops to Iraq or Afghanistan originally and that costs money)"

Number 4 is not strongly so in the case of the US. Nevertheless:

1) Hypothetically, merely because the opposition is also arguing for a single "fascist" element that doesn't mean the party in power isn't also tending towards fascism. In addition, the "liberals" were initially campaigning not to go into Iraq. Now they've failed (and your troops are there), they're campaigning to at least give them enough equipment to have a chance of staying alive. This is very different to prioritising the overwhelming supremacy of the military, which is what the point is all about.

2) Bush is spending a disproportionate amount of money (and raising international tension) developing new high-tech military gadgets like bunker-buster nukes, SDI defence systems and the like.

The keyphrase here is "supremacy of the military", not "having more soldiers than anyone else", or "well-funding all aspects of the military equally".

"number 6 (please point out the state-sponsored censorship in the NYT, LA Times, or Air America Radio)"

Point six says "controlled mass media", not "rigid censorship". In fact it explicitely goes on to state "in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives".

I'm not being offensive, but did you even read the linked article, or just decide you didn't like what it was saying and skim over a few words of it?

"number 10 (haven't seen troops breaking up strikes lately)"

Granted, this doesn't apply too strongly to the US, but then the "labour vs. bosses" fight was largely over many years ago, and workers now have certin rights enshrined in law. In reaction, corporations are simply off-shoring jobs to third-world countries with no such labour laws (and cheaper expenses), as fast as they can. Several Bush economic policies have also eased this flood, not stemmed it.

"The rest could conceivably be argued by some radicals."

Hehehehe, are you serious? I'd have said the following

Re:gestapo wtf

[mikesmind]

I think everybody should have the right to have children, but only after having done a course in raising a kid.

A course or a book cannot prepare you to raise children. These things can help, but the government is a poor entity to tell you how to raise your children. Most of your parenting skills are learned as a child, growing up in your own home. If you don't have that, then the next best thing is a willingness to learn from some elders who are great parents.

I am a parent of five children. Two of them were adopted through the foster care system. There is no way that the government is prepared to teach parenting! I have seen, first hand, how messed up social services are. I have met many good social workers, with great care and dedication for the children, but their hands are tied by an impossible bureaucracy and a legal system that is overwhelmed. Frankly, most of the problems with children stem from the breakdown of the traditional family.

Re:gestapo wtf

[GileadGreene]

I'm not sure about the others, but it wouldn't surprise me if Suharto in Indonesia was focused on the East Timorese "terrorists" (one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter).

Re:gestapo wtf

[kraut]

>First off, the gestapo did a LOT more than just >murdering jews. They spent a lot of time monitoring >as many of their citizens as possible. Basically, >you did not dare speak out, as the person next to >you may very well be SS.

This is really going offtopic, but you shouldn't confuse historical details. The GeStaPo - Geheime Staats Polizei, or Secret State Police - was, as the name implies, acting in secret, carting off anyone suspected as a political enemy. The SS, on the contrary, was a very public organisation, which was, among other things, running the concentration camps.

Other parts of the Nazi machinery were also used in the surveillance network, down to the neighbourhood level, starting a tradition that was continued by the East German Stasi, who allegedly had 10% of the population on the payroll as informers!

Otherwise, I couldn't agree more.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

> And the USA was widely regarded as the shining example of
> representative democracy and civil liberties to the entire world.

Only in the US.

The rest of the world had seen your ill-fated War on Drugs, your absurdly high prison population, your tendency to sentence men to death even though many of them are innocent, your habit of carrying out dangerous experiments on unsuspecting citizens , your habit of supporting dictatorships in other countries, ...

The US has not shone so brightly as it likes to believe for many years. That you could not see your current situation coming doesn't mean the rest of the world had intentionally blinded itself as well.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

Actually, I'm neither paranoid nor a libertarian - I'm actually a pretty well-blanaced left-centrist in the UK (which, I suppose, makes me a dangerous left-wing radical in the US ;-)

Tackling your points:

"Fascism is a philosophy, not a mystery syndrome."

Indeed. But surely to be a philosophy it must have some sort of core beliefs or "symptoms". There must be some sort of defining points, or we wouldn't be able to point to it when we saw it. These seem to be presented as a collection of "common aspects" of a fascist society.

"And maybe some people in the Administration do have authoritarian leanings but... even under Dr. Britt's criteria we still fall short, if only by degrees"

Indeed. But if my country exhibited even the majority of the things listed, I'd be very, very worried. Although not every point applies to the US 100% most of them do, and there are at least "shades of" the rest.

"To say that the U.S. has military supremacy is the most far-fetched of them all. I could only find two cabinet secretaries who had military service listed in their Wikipedia biography: Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, and Veterans Affairs Secretary Jim Nicholson. That's troublesome in its own right, but might explain why there are so many hawks in the Administration. Regardless, when you start getting into fascist military cults... you don't see Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld running around in military uniforms making up medals to give each other like Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, or dare I say it: Hussein's government in Iraq all did."

Sorry to be an arse about this, but did you actually read the article, or merely peruse the headlines and miss the points it was making? Referring you to this very section:

"4. Supremacy of the Military

Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. "

Are there widespread domestic problems in the US? Yes, undeniably. Drugs, crime, poverty, the list goes on.

Is "the military" given a disproportionate amount of funding? Not for bullet-proof vests in Iraq, but Bush is violating treaties and wasting billions on a new generation of bunker-busting nukes, the SDI scheme (that evidence suggests will never work), etc.

The point Britt's making is that military might is prioritised over more important matters. The US isn't run by a military junta, so of course Bush and the gang aren't awarding themselves military honours. However, they're very keen on press conferences on aircraft carriers, always pushing military "solutions" over diplomatic ones, always implying arguing against their policies constitutes "hating the army" and constantly portraying the left as "weak" for even considering diplomacy (or even trying to understand terrorists' motives to fight them better).

Neocons and the extreme right are clearly in love with the military, and the idea of military might. They speak the lingo, clothe their ideas in their terms and constantly identify themselves with the people actually doing the fighting. The only time the split happens is when they actually have to stand up and do their duty, when they suddenly come over all quiet and pull strings to get assigned to the National Guard (or similar).

"Again, it's not that I'm not scared: it could happen; we're inching towards it. But what's his face's attempt to force fit fascism into modern American society is a joke."

Actually, I haven't seen the original report, and neither have you - if you read the page properly you'll see it states right at the top "The excerpt is in accordance with the magazine's policy".

Finally, the page doesn't mention the USA once. I'm the only one who made the connection between the points listed and the USA.

Therefore the fact you don't like the conclusions it forces you into is no reason to reject the study.

In fact, this is never a reason, but it's such a prevalent mindset in the US these days it's almost futile to argue it.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

In the fascist regime of Salazar (Portugal), contemporaneous of all the others in the study and the one I know more about, "terrorists" where indeed one of the favorite scapegoats group, along with "communists".
When the national liberation movements of the former Portuguese African colonies started to fight for their independence in the 60s and till mid 70s, they were labeled as terrorists. Some of them where communist inspired as well but not all, so the terrorist label fit everyone nicely.
This particular scapegoat group is nothing new and I'm not surprised that the others used them as well. But the point is not the nomenclature or the target group, it's the "scapegoat" entity used to focus the people's minds.

Re:gestapo wtf

[dajak]

The biggest problem here is finding the right criteria for taking the children away from their parents. Take away too few, and you end up with deaths, even if the agencies visit the family frequently. Take away too many, and you'll surely get a public outcry.

This is exactly the main problem. My wife and some of my friends work in the involved organizations in the Netherlands. They do very good work generally speaking, but the problem is that they basically have almost no clear criteria in making big decisions about other people's lives. They have too many families to look after, get death threats from parents, their interventions get regularly overturned by the courts for vague reasons, and the shortage of suitable places for children means that children who are taken away from parents can end up in jail because there are no better places.

In the nineties the media was ranting continually about child protection taking away children from innocent parents, based on stories of parents, and now they are ranting about a few cases of children dying because nobody interfered.

The Dutch historian Wesseling once made the famous statement that there cannot be such a thing as liberal art (as opposed to socialist, fascist, catholic art) since liberalism is constitutionally unable to define what art is good. We are talking about liberal in the sense of "tolerant", of course, and not the more limited (and in many ways opposite) American meaning of the word. I would add that liberal child protection cannot be too, since any definition of child abuse involves a government setting criteria for good child rearing, or even for good parents. The left-wing opposition and civil servants have for instance suggested that mentally handicapped couples should not be allowed to have children (which would really reduce the workload, to be honest), but most people simply don't want to face such choices.

Failing to set criteria is exactly what this Dutch government is good at: it talks about values all the time, but never creates any clarity about which (and whose) values they mean and they continually "deregulate" to "give people more responsibility".

Child's safety first. Also, it suddenly makes the government (politically) responsible for the actions of the parents: the government should have taken the child away if its abused.

The law does indeed state that the rights of the child as described by the UN declaration take priority, but the fact of the matter is that you can only get sued by adults. The UN declaration also states that children have a right not to be separated from their parents, which is extremely helpful for parents.

A clear and global view makes clear guidelines possible. It is essential to make informed decisions. A better record of the past, observations made by various people (doctors, police, whatever) put together help do this. Being able to keep the child you abuse merely because you move to another city is inexcusable. Not being able to prevent a child's death just because agencies didn't inform each other properly, is inexcusable too.

The main argument for the increasing decentralization of child protection over the last decade is that regions in the country are apparently so different that you cannot use the same criteria everywhere. The actual reason is that the child care subject is so impopular that the government wants to get rid of the responsibility for it. It is also a way to move responsibility for the budget to the municipalities, which saves money because municipal governments are poor anyway.

Creating a system which collects the relevant information and can alarm the proper agencies, is a structural way to solve both.

I think such a system is indeed part of the solution, but I doubt very much that the government actually wants to take on the real issue: setting the criteria. The government should also become better at parenting itself: taking away a child should be an improvement for the child. This is simply a mon

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

Not "my", mate, I'm from the UK.

That said, yes, the US has always had something of an authoritarian bent (hence the WoD and the high prison population, which are obviously linked). I think it comes from being started by a bunch of Puritans who left England because they didn't think it was uptight enough ;-)

True, the US has also been involved in all the things you mention, but then there is documented proof that many countries (the UK, for one) tested bacteriological and chemical weapons (on unsuspecting conscripts, in our case), and half the current destabilisation in the middle east is our fault (the other half is the USA stepping in to meddle about the time we stopped, in the early part of the 20th century).

To be clear: my point was that the USA was much more of a good example of democracy in the past than it is now. Never one-tenth the example it thought it was, but nevertheless, it's fallen a long way even so.

I doubt that even anyone well-aware of its murky aspects would have predicted quite such a quick drop in liberty or such a stunning reversal of international prestige.

Re:gestapo wtf

[P3NIS_CLEAVER]

One holocust survivor that I knew had fond memories of being smuggled out of Germany by the Dutch.

Re:gestapo wtf

[ifwm]

First, let me say this was awesome. I always love it when someone takes a piece of propaganda as gospel (that's what you did by the way).

"* Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, etc, etc)"

Which I will counter with, Affirmative Action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Family Leave Act... need I continue?

"* Obsession with National Security"

Then why hasn't the single most serious threat to national security, the largely unguarded borders, been addressed? Why is amnesty for illegal immigrants being considered? Nope, this fails too.

"* Religion and Government are Intertwined (the Religious Right has enormous power in the US, and has successfully pushed through many initiatives despite your own Constitution mandating the separation of church and state!)"

There is NO separation of Church and State outlined in the Constitution. You are quoting an oft repeated misunderstanding of how the Constitution discusses this subject. But I'm not surprised, you didn't bother to research your other points either.

  "* Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts (Bush is practically the poster-boy for this, as is the right-wing rejection of intellectualism, mis-using of scientific evidence, political interference in scientific research, etc, etc, etc)."

Bull. Stop confusing the Executive branch of our government with America. They're not the same.

"* Fraudulent Elections (Bush's initial election, ongoing evidence of large-scale voting fraud, "problems" with e-voting machines, etc, etc)"

Of course, it must be FRAUD!!!!!! What's that saying, "never attribute to maliciousness what can be explained by incompetence". Have you ever heard that one? If you're trying to assert that one side cheated in the 2000 elections, while the other side was holding a bake sale, you're a fool.

Overall your post is an ill informed screed against the Bush administration, which you seem to equate the the entire US. WHY? you do realize that the country is deeply divided on many of the issues that you list.

As is always the case, you've found just what you were looking for, and discarded the rest, despite the fact that "the rest" belies your arguments.

"I'd be fucking worried if my country was demonstrably 71% of the way to being a fascist state."

Well, what country is it? I'm sure if I picked out specific facts, and discarded things that didn't suppotr my argument, I could make your country look pretty bad too.

Re:gestapo wtf

[ifwm]

"denied even minimal Geneva Convention protections"

Why would you NEED Geneva Convention protections, unless you were a combatant? Wouldn't the CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS have jurisdiction otherwise?

"merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time."

When did this EVER happen? The truth is you don't KNOW it was for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You're making things up.

There are a TON of reasons to rail against rights abuses, you have no reason to twist the truth in order to do so.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Ihlosi]

Which I will counter with, Affirmative Action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Family Leave Act... need I continue?

No, you don't really. You've shown that you missed the point of human rights. Human rights aren't something that should be observed only if it is convenient and popular.

Is it okay to steal as long as you don't murder ? I don't think so.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

Ten years ago in USA you couldn't be arrested, detained without trial, denied even minimal Geneva Convention protections and tortured and abused without restitution merely for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And the USA was widely regarded as the shining example of representative democracy and civil liberties to the entire world.

Yes you could, and it did happen.

But many of the people complaining about those abuses now are Clinton ass-kissing sycophants, and refuse to believe that the crap going on today started long before January 20, 2001.

Such blatant hypocrisy is one of the reasons such conerns are not taken seriously by the population at large.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Retric]

"I would rather be concerned for countries which do execute people and do drag people to camps without judge or trail "for national security" and do invade foreign nations to expand their sphere of influence, all covered with a thick layer of propaganda and national pride. *That* is I call tending towards Fascistic nature."

Damm, I honestly thought you where going to start ranting about the US there... Wow, this country is going to shit.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

no rampant sexism? actually, our society is dominated by sexism

gender determines more than anything except class status

you "guys" can argue all you want, however it's clear, corporate facism is clearly growing

Re:gestapo wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

That's it. I'm legally changing my name to . Let's see those bastards enter _that_ into a data field!

Re:gestapo wtf

[renehollan]

Agreed.

My first thought after RTA was, "Ah! This is an interesting use of the word 'protect' with which I'm not familiar" (with appologies to Douglas Adams).

Re:gestapo wtf

[Anonymous Coward]

True - for example the "extrajudicial renditions" of prisoners to countries known to practice torture happened under Clinton, too. On the other hand, in most actions Clinton was more conservative (rather than fascist)than any recent Republican president.

Re:gestapo wtf

[lgw]

Very well reasoned.

I don't think there's any rational fear that the US will become fascist, any more than we'll become communist, or a religious dictatorship. We might become an entirely *new* kind of totalitarian state, but we won't repeat old mistakes. If you live deep in a red state you discover that people *really* don't like the government gettin' in their business. It would take some entirly new scam to overcome that: fear of terrorists or fear of corporations or fear of God isn't enough to change this basic resistance to totalitarianism.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Spectra72]

Where have you been for the last..oh 230 years? Prohibition? Alien & Sedition Acts? Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus? Much of the New Deal legislation?

The erosion of Rights in the US has been happening since about 1776.

Re:gestapo wtf

[iawia]

Great post, thanks.

My link to the subject is also my wife, btw., who has worked as a gardian/gezinsvoogd. She did get into a lot of trouble pointing out inconsistency and lack of guidelines in that job, though...

I agree that the setting of criteria by the government would help a lot in this case. There was talk (last year)of explicitly making hitting a child illegal, which I think would be a good start. I don't think it came through, though.
I've noticed that there's many people that don't agree with this, but at the very least it would send a clear signal: nu violence.

Re:gestapo wtf

[WindBourne]

Actually, the nazis made heavy use of IBM tech. to manage the extermination. That is why IBM has come under such fire for their part in WWII (yeah, I know, IBM had no idea what it was being used for). And that work helped make it much more efficient at capturing, tracking, and "exterminating" (such a more pleasant word than state sponsered murder; kind of like terrorists elimination or execution).

Personally, I think that these DB will never be used against the citizens. But the issue is that it makes the job so damn easy iff and when the troops roll. The real issue is that our govs. have shown the old maximum. Power corrupts. Absolute Power corrupts absolutely.

Re:gestapo wtf

[dajak]

My link to the subject is also my wife, btw., who has worked as a gardian/gezinsvoogd.

My wife diagnoses and gives behavioral therapy to (both criminal and traumatized) children. In her second job she educates people on recognizing the signals of child abuse and interviewing children (police academy, two universities, academic hospitals, etc.).

We have one experience where the guardian was very afraid of some parents, and my wife adviced to take the children away because the guardian didn't dare to. A parent, who was already convicted for two attempted murders, threatened her and she had police protection for some time. She did go to work every day though, as opposed to some members of parliament. This certainly gave me a fresh insight into why nobody acts in some extreme cases.

There was talk (last year)of explicitly making hitting a child illegal, which I think would be a good start. I don't think it came through, though.

Last thing I heard is that it is in the pipeline now. You will hear again of it in a short while. It will not be in the BW, as was suggested before, but there will be a guideline defining hitting children as child abuse.

Re:gestapo wtf

[riprjak]

Sagndrax said : "How does wanting to prevent that even come remotely close to creating WW2 like scenarios?"

No! You have missed the point entirely.

Freedom is the important thing. If some people die because society is free and you didnt have "total information awareness" to make the links that is unfortunate but nescessary.

Just because the intentions are (apparently) pure, does NOT protect people from the abuse of this tool by future (less pure) governments/officials! It's like all the new "anti-terror" legislations springing up around the place (including, sadly, here in Australia).

You do not protect people by reducing their freedoms. Because that diminishes us all.

You do not protect people by monitoring them all day every day. Because that reduces us to lab specimins.

Try solving the problems that lead to children being under threat rather than simply catching people who threaten children?? The correct actions are never the easy ones. Education, social equity, freedom, health, employment, opportunity... these are the things the government should provide and ensure for us.

Id rather a tiny number of children suffered for the rest to be free in the same way I would rather die as a result of a terrorists action than live in a Police state.

My grandfathers fought, my relatives DIED in their fscking country to prevent exactly this kind of crap, the world made its descision 60some years ago. NO TO FASCISM!!! We need to respect the work of our grandparents, not piss on their sacrafice.

err!
jak.

Re:gestapo wtf

[riprjak]

Yes, I realise I cant spell... :)

Re:gestapo wtf

[aybiss]

And the USA was widely regarded as the shining example of representative democracy and civil liberties to the entire world.

Only in America, and even then only by white males who live there.

Re:gestapo wtf

[cobras2]

>Read The 14 Characteristics of Fascism by Dr. Lawrence Britt A) I agree with cappadocius on this, and B) at least 1/3 of those points have nothing at all to do with fascism. # Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Uhh yeah, many nations have had a strong sense of nationalism without being fascist. # Soldiers and military service are glamorized. While I agree with the first part of the main point this is found under, I don't think this bit has anything to do with fascism, and I also only half agree with it. It entirely depends on *how* they are glamorized - as being a role of protection of the country, or as being the valiant conquerors of lesser nations? ## Rampant Sexism #The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. What government from before.. err.. like the last 50 years (if you wanna be optimistic) WASN'T?!... not many, and most of them weren't fascist. #Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. Opposing abortion has nothing to do with it either. Maybe Hitler opposed abortion, but he also killed anybody he didn't find useful. *His* reason for opposing abortion was because he wanted more soldiers. Any decent person who opposes abortion does so because it is taking a life. Hitler had no qualms about taking lives if they weren't useful to him. Anti-gay legislation is fascist? Eww. Also, Eww. And finally.. yuck. This reminds me of just another case of calling anything you don't like "fascist" and anything you like "democratic" (note: the particular terms used can be changed depending on the audience) # Religion and Government are Intertwined Well, some of the subpoints are good on this one (like "Religious rhetoric ... is common ... even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions."), but again I fail to see how this has anything to do with it. I think he would better say "The government uses whatever language it feels will influence the masses to do its dirty work, even if the meaning of that language is actually oposite to how they use it") All in all I find that a very poor starting point for a definition of fascism, since quite a few of those "defining points" are really quite *beside* the point.

Re:gestapo wtf

[cobras2]

And the USA was widely regarded as the shining example of representative democracy and civil liberties to the entire world. Interestingly enough, they were regarded that way before World War 2, as well, and I believe that the German system actually borrowed quite a lot fom the US before Hitler came along. The fact that Hitler did what he did *after* the German system had adopted a lot of ideas from the US is ... disturbing, as well.

Re:gestapo wtf

[cobras2]

Blech.. I'm obviously a slashdot newbie. Sorry about the unformatted paragraph(s)...

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

"Which I will counter with, Affirmative Action, the Americans with Disabilities Act, The Family Leave Act... need I continue?"

No, it would be fruitless since you've completely missed the point. "Human Rights" is not the same as "treating your citzens fairly".

A "commitment to human rights" is a 100% commitment that all people, irrespecitve of race, colour, religion, nationality or sexuality are owed certain inalienable rights.

You can give black people and the disabled foot-massages and blow-jobs if you like, but if a few thousands miles away your government has hundreds of people imprisoned for years without trial (or even formal charges), subject to humiliation and torture, simply because they're suspected of a crime.. .then no, your government does not respect human rights.

Human rights apply to all people, not just the ones you play golf with or live next to.

"Then why hasn't the single most serious threat to national security, the largely unguarded borders, been addressed? Why is amnesty for illegal immigrants being considered? Nope, this fails too."

Because it isn't the biggest threat to national security. All the 9/11 hijackers entered the country legally, using their own passports. the biggest irregularity in their presence there was that a few of them had overstayed on their tourists' visas for a couple of weeks.

Why would they need to risk sneaking across the border when they can (still!) waltz through your airports with valid documentation?

"There is NO separation of Church and State outlined in the Constitution. You are quoting an oft repeated misunderstanding of how the Constitution discusses this subject. But I'm not surprised, you didn't bother to research your other points either."

Ignoring the cheap (and hypocritical) jibe, I apologise - I'm not a US native (I'm from the UK), so forgive me if my understanding of the minutae of your civic system is lacking ;-p

Regarding the point at hand, I've read up a bit - the Constitution doesn't explicitely mention the separation of church and state, so you were correct, and I was overstating the case.

However, the first Ammendment is generally interpreted to ensure this. Even if you choose to read it differently, the confusion should be cleared up by a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danberry Baptists, in which he writes:

I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

So I'd say however open to interpretation the 1st Ammendment is, the intention seems pretty clear, no?

I also note that while you pick up on my misunderstanding of american civic details, you don't deny the religious right has enormous power in the US, either. Evolution vs Creationism/ID and the posting of the ten commandments in schools/on Court buildings demonstrates this clearly (do churches have a copy of the Constitution pinned to Jesus' chest?).

"'Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts'...
Bull. Stop confusing the Executive branch of our government with America. They're not the same."

First off, it's not the executive branch - it's all three branches of your government that are dominated by neocon-influenced right-wing Republicans.

Secondly, your government sets the laws, your government determines your foreign policy, and your government is a "representative democracy". Either it represents the majority of americans (in which case "the country"), or it doesn't represent the majority of americans (eg, through fiddled elections), in which case you're admitting it's effectively a faux-democratic junta and your country's even c

Re:gestapo wtf

[bustersnyvel]

Most of your parenting skills are learned as a child, growing up in your own home. If you don't have that, then the next best thing is a willingness to learn from some elders who are great parents.

True, but that all implies a willingness to learn. The kind of parents that we're talking about here - the bad, misbehaving and abusing kind, don't want to learn. That's why I'm suggesting that they MUST learn before getting children.

There is no way that the government is prepared to teach parenting!

Sure, but that's not the issue here. I think they should at least tell you what not to do with your child, and what not to forget. A list of DOs and DON'Ts would already help.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

"Why would you NEED Geneva Convention protections, unless you were a combatant? Wouldn't the CONSTITUTION and THE BILL OF RIGHTS have jurisdiction otherwise?"

I don't think you've understood the situation here.

They were taken as prisoners of war, which entitles them to Geneva Convention protections.

The US administration used a legally-questionable and morally-disgusting loophole to classify them as "enemy combatants", and used this as a loophole to deny them Geneva Convention protections, since the geneva convention only talks about "prisoners of war" - "enemy combatants" was a superfluous term invented by the US administration solely to circumvent their Geneva Convention obligations, so it's no surprise they Geneva Convention doesn't mention ECs.

Either way they've never had a trial, so it's never been determined if each specific individual was even fighting on the Taliban's side.

There have been documented cases where innocent people in Afghanistan during the invasion were reported to the American forces as Taliban fighters, simply because someone held a grudge against them and wanted them "got rid of".

Since they haven't had a trial, there's been no test of their guilt, so we don't even know whether each one all guilty.

In addition, the legal limbo they're held in has allowed the US government to torture, abuse and humiliate them, in defiance not only of the Geneva Convention, but in defiance of basic Human Rights.

That's the situation - no truth-twisting necessary (or intended).

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

"Yes you could, and it did happen."

Really? When? I never heard anything about that. Can you explain more, or is it a baseless accusation?

If so it's disgusting, and should damn well have been publicised. However, since it wasn't (and the media was much less in the then-administration's pocket), I find it hard to automatically believe (without any evidence) that it did.

"But many of the people complaining about those abuses now are Clinton ass-kissing sycophants, and refuse to believe that the crap going on today started long before January 20, 2001."

Not at all. I think Clinton was a politician, and hence inherently untrustworthy and duplicitous - witness, for example, his quietly signing up to a whole shitload of environmental initiatives in his last days in office, knowing he wouldn't have to deal with the consequences because he'd be gone by then. Bush then takes office and immediately cans the lot, instantly earning ire from environmental groups.

Now, I had a lot of sympathy for Bush for that specific event, but his ongoing refusal to even acknowledge global warming, his disasterous (and ill-thought-out) policies and his rampant corruption and cronyism have long-since outweighed any cheap departing shots from Clinton.

The problem is that the right wing automatically assumes any criticism of Bush is partisan politics, instead of (as it often is) abject outrage at his corrupt, dangerous and amoral policies and behaviour.

I don't think Clinton was a saint, but he was nearly impeached by the right for lying about a blowjob to save his marriage. Bush has dragged the country through two wars, at least one on trumped-up charges, knowingly lied to congress and the public, massively increased corruption and cronyism in federal agencies and let hundreds or thousands of people die through that corruption (or sheer incompetence).

And what happens to him? He gets voted back in for a second term by people such as yourself.

Re:gestapo wtf

[ifwm]

"There have been documented cases where innocent people in Afghanistan during the invasion were reported to the American forces as Taliban fighters, simply because someone held a grudge against them and wanted them "got rid of"."

Really? Name one. I'll wait.

Still waiting.

I think the point you've missed is that

A. YOU don't know what they have and haven't been given (so stop making what could very well be incorrect assumptions). If you want to hammer the administration for not providing information about their cases, fine, I'm with you. But NONE of the conclusions you've drawn are supported by facts, because no one is being given any facts.

B. You're not going to get ANYWHERE arguing that individuals who have engaged in covert military action against the US aren't enemy combatants. The "loophole" you describe has been used by other countries before, and quite frankly, the people who are being detained violated the Geneva Conventions themselves by not clearly identifying themselves as combatants. When they did that they forfeited their protections.

C. If they're US citizens, then their first protection should be the CONSTITUTION, not some ridiculously weak loosley related aggreements between previously (and sometimes currently) warring countries.

You're a partisan shill. And the worst part is that you've swallowed a line of crap as gospel, because you're too enamored with your own intellect to admit you may not know the truth.

STOP portraying your interpretation of the situation as fact. It's not, it's just your obviously biased opinion.

Re:gestapo wtf

[ifwm]

"Funny how an overwhelming proportion of the voting irregularities that have come out were in favour of Bush."

This, along with many other inaccuracies (read lies) shows how little you know.

Do a little research and then come back and apologize for lying.

Re:gestapo wtf

[Shaper_pmp]

"Really? Name one. I'll wait.
Still waiting."

Jesus, give me a chance!

Ok, a quick Google srearch turns up:

How we survived jail hell (Observer, respected, non-tabloid British newspaper)

Britain frees all five former Guantanamo detainees (USA Today)

Returning Afghans Talk of Guantanamo (Washington Post)

British Guantanamo Terror Suspects Released Without Charge (ATSNN (?))

Men Held at Guantánamo Months After Deemed Innocent (New Standard News (?))

Guantanamo Bay Prisoners Complain of A Year Long Torture by US Military (globalpolicy.org (?))

And that was just on the first page.

Do I get my apology now?

"You're not going to get ANYWHERE arguing that individuals who have engaged in covert military action against the US aren't enemy combatants."

No, of course many of them were. However, the correct term for an opposing fighter taken prisoner in a war is "prisoner of war".

Classifying them as "enemy combatants" is a weak legal loophole designed solely to avoid the US's Human Rights obligations under the Geneva Convention.

"The "loophole" you describe has been used by other countries before"

As you said, name one.

You'll also not I'm not automatically assuming you're wrong, merely asking you to prove it. Because I don't know for sure you aren't.

This is careful and rational argument, and not just arrogantly assuming I'm automatically right. We try to do this where I'm from, although I know the US isn't big on it at the moment.

"and quite frankly, the people who are being detained violated the Geneva Conventions themselves by not clearly identifying themselves as combatants. When they did that they forfeited their protections."

I don't recall a passage or clause under the Geneva Accords that says you have to clearly identify yourself as a combatant, but if you show me an excerpt I'll concede this point.

Nevertheless, this is what a trial is for - to establish whether or not the person actually is guilty. If they're all denied a trial, how can the innocent ones be freed?

"C. If they're US citizens, then their first protection should be the CONSTITUTION, not some ridiculously weak loosley related aggreements between previously (and sometimes currently) warring countries."

How many of them are actually US citizens? As a member of "the rest of the world" (you guys remember that place, right?) you can do what you like with your own citizens, but as I recall most US-native citizens captured were dealt with quickly, and there were barely any of them. Likewise, citizens of other western powers had an expedited release or repatriation for judging in their own countries.

The remaining prisoners are mostly Afghani (or other nationalities that the US feels safe in upsetting), and they aren't going anywhere, not even to trial.

Oh, and the Geneva Convention rights aren't "weak" - they state explicitely what's allowed and what isn't. Humiliation, torture and unlawful imprisonment aren't allowed.

The only reason you think they're weak is because your government has (illegally and immorally) tried so damn hard to weasel out of them, and nobody else is big enough or brave enough to take on the biggest, most nuked-up, violent and paranoid bully in the world at the moment.

"You're a partisan shill. And the worst part

Lessons of History

[Budenny]

You would have thought the Dutch of all people would understand the dangers. In Holland before WWII the local authorities had records of the religion of their people. The reason was simple, so that contributions could be made to the churches on their behalf. All very reasonable and in keeping with tolerance and religious diversity. But come the invasion, it was very very simple to find everyone of a given religion.... It is not what these guys will use this stuff for, its what their successors may use it for.

Re:Lessons of History

[smaughster]

There is no new information being tracked, only existing information being linked correctly. Any successor that wants to abuse this information could already do it by linking it themselves. So you may propagate obscurity to give yourself a false sense of security and link this initiative to WWII, but both this argument and analogy make no sense.

Re:Lessons of History

[tinkerton]

you give a nice example of the duality. If you see government as a service industry(the liberal point of view) then centralizing databases is handy. Stretch it a bit and most people wouldn't even have to care about privacy.

But from a conservative angle the government becomes a possible tool for control. Conservatism both entails the intent to control as the resistance to it.

This could become one of the interesting applications of digital rights management. The ability to control access to information, and to change this at any moment.

Re:Lessons of History

[lxs]

You'd think so, and many of us know this fact and see this as an excellent reason to oppose this scheme. Our government however, consists of people who only know something if it is taught in business school or in the Bible, and most of them have a tenuous grip on those subjects.

Just shout 'Terrorists' or 'Child Abuse' and the rest of the country will follow blindly.

This is partly about terrorism

[kop]

The murderer of Theo van Gogh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Bouyeri
Was known to the police as a member of a group of Moroccan "problem-youth." Later he worked as a volunteer at Eigenwijks, a neighbourhood organization in the Slotervaart suburb of Amsterdam. He started to radicalize shortly after his mother died and his father re-married.

Various social workers, police neighbourhood watchers and the secret service knew him. Only nowbody knew what was coming...

These plans can thus be understood as a way to keep better track of the muslim youth in our cities. This is political and big-brother like.
On the other hand it simply makes sense to do this as it will allmost certainly help to keep these young people on the right track with jobs and education.

Re:This is partly about terrorism

[pahles]

This has nothing to do with tracking Muslim youth, or any problem-youth. You as a Dutch citizen should know that there have been several little children killed by there parents or friends of parents, and later it was found that several governmental agencies knew about possible troubles, except that the agencies didn't know of each other that they knew it. This is an attempt to end this problem. I haven't thought about the consequences yet, so I don't know if it is a good idea or not.

Re:This is partly about terrorism

[kop]

If this is about little children and they parents then why are the checking truancy (spijbelen), education and criminality in kids? This is hardly going to protect small children from their parents. If you had RTFA jou would have known that this tracking concerns things done by chidren 12 years and up. Not their parents.

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Netherlands also holds the record in the highest telephone tap rate of most western countries.

In the words of Eddie Griffin...

[Afecks]

...THOSE MOTHERFUCKERS!!!

Problems with Kids Caused by Parents?

[RAMMS EIN]

It's nice that they're trying to help kids and all, but why don't they do something about the parents? I'm not so surprised that in a society where parents are both working (no attention for kids), divorced (psychological damage/no time and money for kids), or oppressive (e.g. certain muslim families), the kids might get into trouble with themselves.

So now these organizations come up with the good idea to warn each other of possible problems, but at the same time the government gives in to working parents by increasing subsidies on child care. I mean, if you find child care too expensive, why don't you just quit your job and, you know, raise your friggin kids?! Could cut you some stress, too, so that maybe you can stay together with your partner for more than 5 years?

Re:Problems with Kids Caused by Parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not so surprised that in a society where parents are both working (no attention for kids), divorced (psychological damage/no time and money for kids), or oppressive (e.g. certain muslim families and most American families... Can you even spell "racist" you smug redneck ignoramus?

Re:Problems with Kids Caused by Parents?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason governments want to encourage parents to work is both economic and social. Firstly, the more people working the better it is for the economy, even if the person working doesn't actually make much (or any) money after having paid for child care. Secondly, not every parent wants to spend 24 hours per day with their children. And anyway, what if the kids go to school and the parents work, but their jobs last, say, 2 hours longer than the school day. That makes childcare the difference between a job and not.

And I haven't even touched on single parent families.

So basically, stop being so judgemental and, you know, let people do what they want and need to do.

Re:Problems with Kids Caused by Parents?

[Scarblac]

Because it's a free country. Until there's actually proof of child abuse, collecting hints is the best we can do. And divorces, unmarried parents etc, those aren't even special nowadays, and it's not the state's business to tell people how to live. It is their business to step in and protect a child once it's established that it's in trouble.

This isn't Puritania, even though we currently have Christians in power. Drugs are recreational and something you sell to tourists, and the prostitutes are unionized. And we have some types of Puritans (mostly muslims, the Christians of that type went to America a few centuries back). Good for them, please leave the rest of us alone.

The thing that sucks about this country though is that we recently passed from political correctness hell into populist hell. But so it goes...

Re:Problems with Kids Caused by Parents?

[RAMMS EIN]

``Because it's a free country. Until there's actually proof of child abuse, collecting hints is the best we can do. And divorces, unmarried parents etc, those aren't even special nowadays, and it's not the state's business to tell people how to live. It is their business to step in and protect a child once it's established that it's in trouble.''

I agree with the principle that you shouldn't step in unless you have something solid to go on. However, I wonder if you couldn't make a case based on neglect. If both parents are out working till, say, 6 pm, and do occassional evening activities (I think that's not untypical), that doesn't leave more than a few hours per day for the children, and about an equal amount of time that the kids are home alone. If it were somehow established that this is not giving the kids what they need, I definitely think there is a reason to step in and correct the parents' behavior.

I'm not saying it's all the parents' fault, just stating that I think they're part of the problem. In all cases I know where something was wrong with the children, there was also something wrong with the parents. Almost all my friends have had lacking parents, and almost all of them have some problem that could be related to it. Correlation does not imply causation, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a connection here.

Re:Problems with Kids Caused by Parents?

[Scarblac]

If it were somehow established that this is not giving the kids what they need, I definitely think there is a reason to step in and correct the parents' behavior.

Firstly, that hasn't been established.

Secondly, government doesn't know when you work or how much time you spend with your kids, so this seems to me a useless method.

What this is about is that there are different entities that may get possible indications of child abuse - police may note the kid is always hanging about outside, teachers see a kid that has a black eye a bit often, perhaps a two yearly physician checkup that shows some odd bruises, perhaps some neighbour suspecting something calls the child protection agency. By themselves, such things don't mean much, but if they were connected, someone might find out about a problem before it's too late.

The second thing that's being addressed is that sometimes the agencies involved are aware of a problem, are already keeping an eye on a family and have the parents in some program, perhaps trying to get the kid moved to foster parents - and then the family moves to a different city, where the local bureau of the agency never heard about them so that the process stops.

It's those two problems that are addressed by connecting these specific file collections. They're very specific issues that have come out of investigations into the deaths of several children in recent years, as possible improvements.

And it has nothing to do with parents not spending enough time with their kids, or with Big Brother. The Slashdot title and blurb are of course incredibly off the mark, as usual.

Additional background information

[Frans Faase]

In the past year, several times children have died because of molest, when several authorities where aware of things going wrong. In some cases ten or more different organisations where involved with a family but not knowing about each other. After the child died, it was realized that the life of the child could have been saved, if the organisations had been aware of eachother.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[Ivo]

This completely bypasses the point. One of the points is that, children that are abused by their parents, will be able to get better help because police, government, school, all will be able to communicate to improve a child's situation.

Now I don't think an abusing parent would allow the kid to carry its pod anywhere.

Sounds like fun to me.

[Charcharodon]

Citizen 4982245673 I see you have repeatedly kept your movies past their due date and have been late to work 3 times in the past year. Please report to room 203 for re-education.

Old news

[TarryTops]

Was already released yesterday.

Your RIGHTS Online ?

[alexhs]

Could we change the section name to something more accurate like "Your Lefts Online" ?

Things sound more and more like Minipax, Miniluv...

LOL POST LOL

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL POST LOL

Who gives a damn if this is well intentioned...

[birge]

Sometimes things are just wrongheaded, no matter what the intentions. There's no reason the government should be taking this much personal interest in citizens. It's not just that it's ripe for abuse so much as it's an indicator that the Dutch have completely given up on taking care of themselves and their communities on any level other than a centralized beaurocracy. What does it say about a society when they feel the best way to Do The Right Thing is to keep a central database on each other and pay the government to track their children for them? I hope I speak for a majority of voters in America when I respectfully say please keep that shit on the other side of the pond. (To head off the knee-jerk reactions: Yes, I know America is a place devoid of compassion for the poor, and that we might do better with an Orwellian scheme like this than what we're doing now. I'm not saying America does things right, I'm just saying I hope that in attempting to fix our problems we don't go anywhere near this kind of 'solution'.)

Re:Who gives a damn if this is well intentioned...

[Ihlosi]

It's not just that it's ripe for abuse so much as it's an indicator that the Dutch have completely given up on taking care of themselves and their communities on any level other than a centralized beaurocracy.

Then again, you can probably find American "communities" that are larger than the Netherlands.

Re:Who gives a damn if this is well intentioned...

[birge]

I'm not sure I'd call them communities, then. If you don't have a reasonable chance of knowing each person, it's not a community, almost by definition. The word gets thrown around a lot (schools with 20,000 students often conceit to considering themselves a community, for example) but it's sort of a meaningless concept unless you know the people. Imagine how much more useful actually knowing people is than keeping a database on them. Strong community will do far more for children than a database. When I was a kid, I had about six extra mothers around town who knew me since I was a baby. There's no way in hell I was going to get away with anything without my real parents finding out.

I completely respect some people's desire to live in anonymity and devote their lives to work while sending their kids to daycare, but I highly resent their desire to compensate for the resulting lack of community and parenting by forcing a nanny state on everybody.

Re:Who gives a damn if this is well intentioned...

[pahles]

To some level you are right. Everybody is so concerned with their privacy, while some 'social control' would prevent a lot of problems from evolving.

Not about storing information

[Frans Faase]

If I understood it correctly, this is not about storing information. It is only about telling which organisations store information about a certain child. This will be based on the personal number that each Dutch person receives.

There are strict rules with respect to which organisation are allowed to exchange information, and in many cases parents have to give written permission. I often had to sign such forms when dealing with various child health organisations and individuals.

Wow

[DaveV1.0]

One stop Identity-theft shopping!

Weee!

Re:Wow

[Uukrul]

One stop Identity-theft shopping!

In Europe idnetity theft isn't as easy as in the United States. The ID is used every day in every situation, so if some one steals your ID it is easy found.
In the USA the information is more decentraliced, so it's easier to use someone ID arround the country.

I have ever kwnown any case of Id theft in Europe (Germany, France, Spain, Italy, ...).

So I don't understant how this list is going to be used to Identity-theft.

Re:Wow

[JaredOfEuropa]

One stop Identity-theft shopping!

Only a small step to "One click Identity-theft shopping".

Re:Wow

[sconeu]

Nah, Amazon has the patent on that.

I wish it was more technical

[schestowitz]

This is Slashdot. I frankly think that the item neglects some of the interesting facts. For example: how would the Dutch government store the data? Will our data be stored in some opaque Excel format, for example?

Re:I wish it was more technical

[hcdejong]

I suspect the proposal doesn't have that level of detail yet. It might be nothing more than a political trial balloon.

Convenient!

[cerberusss]

From TFA:

Every child will get a Citizens Service Number

That's conventient, I don't have to remember my kids' names!

"Hey 35543334, come here for a second, will ya?"

Re:Convenient!

[shani]

"Hey 35543334, come here for a second, will ya?"

You are vastly overestimating the population of the Netherlands. :)

On a more serious note, the US started requiring a social security number (SSN, a taxpayer ID for the American pension scheme) for children claimed as "dependents" at a younger and younger age through the 1980's. This is part of the bizarrely complicated tax system in the US, but basically the government reduces your taxes for each child you take care of. The reason for requiring the SSN was to reduce people cheating by claiming they were supporting children who did not really exist. Supposedly it worked, but I can't be bothered to dig up statistics.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[myowntrueself]

"Trivial example, if you want to borrow money from a bank, then the bank would have good reason to query your PODS for information about your financial history."

Actually, you could almost do this with iPods; your bank manager might be able to extrapolate your financial 'personality' based on music collection on your iPod

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[shanen]

Try thinking of it in terms of the Fifth Amendment. I admit that this is an aspect which I haven't specifically researched, but I've never heard of a child trying to take the Fifth. While in general parents do have strong legal rights over their own children, I don't think they could interfere with the police searching for evidence of child abuse, and in this case, the police would (and with good reason) be able to get a warrant to open the child's PODS if it seemed likely to contain evidence relevant to such an investigation.

What is happening now is that more and more of your personal information is being stored "out there" somewhere, by companies that turn around and buy and sell us.

Another trivial example, but I never knowingly agreed that my credit information should be collected and become part of the database of a very profitable credit information company. However, according to existing laws (if I understand American law correctly), they now own that information and there is nothing I can do about it. (There is a slight loophole now insofar as recent legal interventions now give us some access to that personal information, and even limited rights to challenge the validity of some of it.)

How do they opt-out?

[Mustang Matt]

Too bad this wasn't opt-in only.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[shanen]

I know you're playing a word game on PODS (personally owned data storage) versus Apple's iPod, but actually this is a good example of potentially significant information that you currently have pretty good control over, since most of it is in your control. You might be willing to share information about your musical tastes, for example to look for new friends with similar interests, or you might not want to. However, that decision should be YOURS, not Apple's. I don't yet know if Apple is making any sales pitches based on your musical preferences, but do you want them to?

You think this is scary? Read on...

[Anonymous Coward]

A chief of police recently proposed to link people cell phone records with their social security numbers and criminal databases. The cell phone data would include location information. Holland, like most of European countries have a high density GSM network which makes this possible. And you think this was scary? I am Dutch living in the US for last 5 years and do not like what's happening to my country...

Re:You think this is scary? Read on...

[pe1chl]

This particular database has no relation with tracking terrorists.

The proposal you refer to, does. You are right, we have a problem with politicians like Balkenende and Donner, who believe that they can control everything when they can monitor everyone.

But even more of a problem is that they believe that there is a war on terror to be fought against a hostile community. This belief came upon them when they had too close contact to the current president of the US. Said person indoctrinated them that troups should be sent to countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, to support a war against a phenomenon that they do not understand (and do not bother to understand).
As they really like to please people that appear to be powerful, the troups were sent. And now, they are faced with a "terror threat to the country". Instead of admitting that this is their own stupid fault, they try to cover their asses by inventing all kinds of stupid laws and regulations like the one you are referring to.

In fact:
- they are the real cause of the terror threat. when we had remained neutral there would have been no threat.
- they are exaggerating the threat, scaring people more than necessary
- the are introducing extra measures to constantly monitor people just in case

All in all they are just giving the terrorists what they want. First, give them a reason to attack. Then, scare their own people and take freedom-limiting measures.
Terrorists must be delighted by such a (mis)government! Everyone scared without having to throw a single bomb.

Re:You think this is scary? Read on...

[YrWrstNtmr]

- they are the real cause of the terror threat. when we had remained neutral there would have been no threat.

Yeah...terrorism started with the current US administration. There never were any attacks on civilians, anywhere, before Jan 2001. Similarly, there were never any overt military agressions prior to GWB taking office.
Yes...Remaining 'neutral' is a sure way to guarantee no one ever, ever tries to roll over your country with tanks.

Look how well it has worked in the past.

Re:You think this is scary? Read on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Look how well it has worked in the past.

What, like Sweden? Worked pretty well for them.

Re:You think this is scary? Read on...

[YrWrstNtmr]

Uh huh. Neutrality works, as long as you're making a profit from the main aggressor, and his military depends on you for vital materials.

Re:You think this is scary? Read on...

[pe1chl]

It is quite clear that those countries who have upset others have been the major victims of terrorism. And that is to be expected: terrorism is the way for the underdog to fight someone they cannot fight another way.

Israel is a good example. Small wonder that they have a terrorism problem.
America is similarly positioned.

But in the Netherlands, it has been quite some time since we had terrorism. The threat came back solely because of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, that were performed under the "war against terror" invented by Bush.
(terrorist attacks in the past century were caused by suppressing a minority group as well)

Re:You think this is scary? Read on...

[YrWrstNtmr]

So your assertation is that if Israel didn't 'upset' any of its neighbors, they wouldn't have any problems? If you truly believe that, I have a couple of bridges you may be interested in.

As for the US...surely you haven't forgotten WHY there were so many western military troops in the middle east (prior to 2000), which is a main objection of OBL. Something about one country attacking another country. And the rest of the region asking the US and the UN for help. I seem to remember something like that. It's OK if you don't remember...it WAS quite a while ago.

Answer

[Peer Janssen]

It's meant for "Research" of course, as defined by the "Ministry of Truth".

Stasi weren't Nazi, they were Communist

[Rhinobird]

They were Communist. From communist East Germany. You know, when Germany was split in twain for all those years after World War II. It wasn't that long ago, how come everybody forgets about that?

Re:Stasi weren't Nazi, they were Communist

[ciroknight]

My bad, perhaps it was because I was only 4 years old when the Berlin wall fell.

A reasonable approach idea.

[Mustang Matt]

If they're going to do this regardless of what the citizens think, then is it feasable that they could make it completely anonymous from a case workers point of view?

For instance, a Doctor submits a "red flag" under a SSN (or dutch equivalent) and a school teacher submits one as well as a clergy member.

The person reviewing those red flags wouldn't need to know any identifying information about that child. They could simply return the unique but anonymous ID to the police or whatever.

That way if there was a Pedophile in government looking to abuse the system it would be worthless to them (unless they had a partner at the police station.)

Re:A reasonable approach idea.

[hcdejong]

A good idea, but I'm curious: how useful would the information in this system be to a pedophile?

IIRC part of the proposal is to issue an SSN ('burger identificatie-nummer') to every child - currently only adults have an SSN.

Safety first... privacy is not needed...

[The Impossible]

Yeh, we know... There is a lot fo talk about privacy with mainly 2 sides:

- Most think it's not bad, as it doesn't hurt you when you don't have something to hide.
- Some think that their private lives should be private.

When you combine these 2 sides you get the good guys and the bad guys... (as those opposed surely will have something to hide...)

*sigh* persons can be smart, but people are like cattle... Time to look for migration targets before we get tagged.

Now I know why most americans are so paranoid...

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you...

google, slashdot, blogging, websites may be enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Today people are freely giving away so much info about themselves in publicly available databases like google, slashdot, all those blogs and websites, that everyone can simply be one's own intelligence agency. Hey, and did you really think they didn't attempt it? There are certainly big databases all over the place, you just don't know of it.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[myowntrueself]

Indeed, you could steganographically hide your PODS data in the music collection on the iPod.

Of course, the very titles of the tracks could be used to hide data as well.

And of course people can, and will, draw their own conclusions on a person based on their musical taste (or lack of).

Eh, who gives a flying dry hump?

[Excen]

If it is the proto-Brave-New-World, I can't wait for the 80 identical Swedish Bikini Team members to come and blow my Alpha-Double-Plus johnson.

Re:Eh, who gives a flying dry hump?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's right, as long as it's not the US doing it, it's perfectly alright, nothing to see, move along.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[koekepeer]

"Once you've finished paying off the loan, they'd have no reason to keep any of your personal information (though the records would still be stored on your computer if you want them again, as for another loan)."

banks keep records of all their (former) clients, for administrative purposes. they would never allow this information to be decentralised, unless they'd be legally obliged to do so.

even if they would remove their own records, they'd trust your "PODS" less than thier own. psychology, not reasoning.

funny you should mention the example of bank loans. i don't know how it is in other countries, but in the Netherlands all people with outstanding loans are registered in one central place, where the banks verify if their clients are allowed to borrow more, or whether they have reached their limits. it's a similar idea: by combining information sources into one centralised one abuse has become impossible (in this case, getting high loans at several different banks).

How far now?

[CleverNickedName]

Will it ever be illegal to by a plot of land in the middle of nowhere and live off it? To live separately from corporations, money and government?

Grizzly Adams meets The Good Life. Ideally with less donkies and more Felicity Kendal.

Certainly a worrying prospect

[harryman100]

With any luck this will be developed by the same people as Duke Nukem Forever...

And fingerprints...

[Jacco de Leeuw]

Don't forget the fingerprints. The new identity cards will store information about a person's fingerprints. Children will be required to have these cards on them as well.

Privacy issues vs. solving realworld problems

[gek]

For the first time in a long while I actually believe the end justify the means used. In an ever growing world we are seeing more and more systems pop-up that are able to classify and trace citizen in any country. Most countries that do this immediately label the system as an anti-terrorism system and basically make your life a living hell when you want to fly. Holland (where I life) is actually going to use this system to do good. Track citizens to make sure that nothing bad happens to them.

In the town where I live, we had a small child die when here parents severely abused her. This was such a shock to the nation that an investigation was started. All the instances that are normally involved in child protection had one complaint. There was no central system in place to track problem children in the country. Basically you could abuse your child in one town, get caught, move to the next town with a clean slate. This has happened several times and the government decided to solve this problem. I believe this will do good and I also believe that the Dutch government are not going to abuse the system.

The great thing of living in Holland is that we have privacy issues up the kazoeks. For example, in the rest of the world when someone gets arrested the media can actually use his full name in press reports, no go in Holland. The guy that killed van Gogh is called Mohammed B. and is last name is never used! But they (the gov.) do keep pushing the limits. A while ago they sent out a massive SMS round asking for witnesses to some football violence. They basically asked the telcos to provide the Cell numbers of everyone that was in the stadium or near it when the incident happened. Results: some people were pissed off (logically) but they managed to catch around 30 people with this action.

I am happy to live in Holland and to be honest when I compare it to the US I feel safer and have more trust in my government.

Data gathered

[crzed]

The main reason for these electronic files is to have them easily accessed, exchanged and to simplify correlations.

It is astonishing to see the different types of data that is gathered for these electronic files. It will hold a lot of information on your social, economic, mental and physical background. All this to track a very small group of juveniles that have problems.

That it will criminalize you when you're born in a particular part of town, with certain neighbours and certain parents, remains to be seen.

That it will create a huge problem with regards to access management and auditability is certain.

That there is no opt-out ... well ..

That's complete nonsense

[jeroenb]

What this means is both that some grumpy social worker, on bad day, can flag a kid for life, and there is no way for anyone to put a judgement on the social workers decision.

What does the fact that the system work with flags have to do with how these flags are placed? You have no information at all about the process that sets these flags, so how a single social worker could do this, how this would flag someone for life, etc. has absolutely nothing to do with how it works technically.

My experience with the Dutch government is that they have extensive auditing on all these kinds of activities, monitored by independent control boards.

Re:That's complete nonsense

[Pieroxy]

What does the fact that the system work with flags have to do with how these flags are placed?

The social worker will have access to all the red flags of the file, beforehand. And don't tell me a social worker will not be influenced when he opens the file and already sees 7 flags raised.

why would doctor records... ah yes

[nihaopaul]

it would seem that if somone took an aids test that the insurance companies would be able to see this and not offer them insurance if they applied, typical for the uk, donno about elsewhere.

or does it mean that a teacher that is out to get someone will report to the database that they farted loudly in class and caused a disturbance which would lead to a terrorist investigation?

or does it mean that they cant use the old reason for being caught out of school of "yeah i'm sick i've just been to the doctors"

or does it mean that when when kiddies that apply to a school that they dont get accepted based on if they have been arrested before?

i know for a fact that i was not the most behaved kiddie in school but its just a phase for most.

i'm supprised they arn't asking people to record who they have sex with also so they can track who's who's.

does this mean that immigrants dont get to go into the same database?

Re:why would doctor records... ah yes

[Jedi Alec]

dunno about you, but here there's plenty of places where one can have themselves checked for sexually transmitted diseases anonymously. in fact, when i inquired a while ago at my physician about what would be the best way to have such a test conducted, he explicitly advised me to do so anonymously for exactly the reasons you mentioned. ofc, considering they have your blood, a dna match against a central database is easily made.

Re:why would doctor records... ah yes

[nihaopaul]

yeah anonymous. what is that again?

i've recently been helping out somone i know find out some information about anonymous AIDs testing in china, china doesn't allow this to go on, because the simple fact is that they have an eviction policy for forigners, so even your trusted forign physician working in china has to send your blood into the government testing facility if it tests positive, how sick is that!

Re:why would doctor records... ah yes

[SillyNickName4me]

For as far as medical insurance goes, starting 1 jan 2006, medical insurance companies here are not allowed to refuse people (and are limited in what they can charge). This is already true for people below the income line for mandatory social health insurance now, and will apply to everyone after that date.

Other insurances might be a different issue however.

That will make it easier to get the Jews ...

[Nice2Cats]

... and the homosexuals and the blacks and the handicapped and the Communists and those of low intelligence once the Nazis come to power again. And this time, they can include genetic data! How Anton Mussert must be crying in his grave over the lost opportunity -- if only he had had such tools...

What a wonderful basis to build a totalitarian state on. Given the backlash against foreigners (dark-skinned, non-Christian foreigners, that is) in the Netherlands at the moment, this would really, really make me nervous.

Thats ALOT of kids

[fgl]

Do you have time for anything else?

A database of children?

[RollingThunder]

Is that what they call a pedofile? /rimshot

Re:A database of children?

[TeknoHog]

s/shot/job/

it's in the netherlands...

[Anonymous Coward]

so who gives a fuck.

yikes

[40Two]

yikes just yikes

it would add to the irony if..

[tinkerton]

you were dutch.

Like this idea

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/004/616jszlg.asp

FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it. Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities......

And now they want to euthanize children.

and this
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19295

real progressive
http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid =Mozilla-search&va=progress

progress

1 a (1) : a royal journey marked by pomp and pageant (2) : a state procession b : a tour or circuit made by an official (as a judge) c : an expedition, journey, or march through a region
2 : a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : ADVANCE
3 : gradual betterment; especially : the progressive development of mankind

to quote from above post
"Funny how their radical ideas don't seem to inflict great harm on their society though."

Re:Like this idea

[SillyNickName4me]

Heh, yeah, the baptist press is extremely likely to write a nice unbiassed article about this kind of thing...

I do understand that people can be against all cases of euthanasia because of religion (just be consistent with the 'thou shall not kill part' and apply it everywhere), no issue with that.

I do also understand the argument about euthanasia on people who are not able to make a well considered decision themselves, and the need to guard against that.

I do however suggest that before you judge the euthanasia related law in the Netherlands, you go inform yourself a lot better then reading a few articles from predominantly religious papers, or just decide that you don't like it based on belief. Bringing in arguments when you are as little informed as you are is just going to make you look very silly.

In Norway we have this database

[Harald Paulsen]

Norway has this database actually. Everyone born or moving into Norway is registered and they keep track of your parents and grandparents, where you are born, the places you have lived, when you died and if you're married / living together with someone. Every appartment even has a unique number (Mine is H0101, which is the first appartment on the first floor) so in case of emergency they can pinpoint you fairly easily.

Re:In Norway we have this database

[Kjella]

And so far, so good in my opinion. It's not really an excessive amount of information when you think about it, if you ran through the phone books, marriage announcement, orbituaries etc. etc. it's pretty much public information anyway, and the control is pretty good.

For example my bank, employer, tax collection, medical records, criminal records, most public services and such identify you by this ID since it is unique, but they aren't allowed to combine databases. Moving won't change your ID, so it doesn't help to move to a new district.

We do sort of have these warning flags (bekymringsmelding) already, but they do not go into a common database. They are sent e.g. by worried school or health personnel to child services, which will investigate. The police will also routinely notify child services of any minors caught in crime.

Sounds rather omnious so far, eh? Well, the child services have to investigate, and if there's no sign of abuse or neglect, the case will be deleted (the same watchdog making sure they don't combine records is making sure they do, I used to work with infosec). Many cases are dropped at that point.

The two most usual complains I see are these:
a) Child services are wrong, and they are right. Might be true, because when do you intervene? "Possibly abuse" "Probably abuse" "Abuse beyond a reasonable doubt"? Not to mention that abuse and neglect are a sliding scale, some are struggling, some are indiffernt, some are malevolent.

Also remember that parents lie. They lie about themselves, and often in custody cases they lie about each other. I've heard of and met enough psychotic women that I'm sure some of them would make false claims of sexual abuse if you tried to leave her.

b) There's no getting away from a record, once you have it, it is set in stone. People have gone to court to get things off that record. I've got mixed feelings on that issue (again, standards of evidence) but letting records disappear by moving is not a good idea in any case.

So in summary, I think it works just fine the way it is today. However, if we succumb to the fear of terror, we're in a position to make a much more stasi-like system than you are... Oh did I mention we already have the equivalent of the great firewall of China in place? Just for kiddie porn now (block but not report), but a little configuriation change and well...

Kjella

Re:In Norway we have this database

[ElNeo]

Some advantages with this register in Norway:

- simpel and effective way to reserve against commercial junk mail. All marketers are required by law to wash their databases (This actually works very good! I have not seen an ad with my address on it for many years.)
- no fuss at elections (no registration required), easy to vote in advance when you are out of town etc.
- all correspondence from any public office will go to the correct adress. (Also from the traffic/police department...)
- some banks use the adress from the database when they issue cards - this makes it hard to optain a card in another persons name.
- makes it quick and cheap to process applications (E.g. an application for a student loan from the State Educational Loan Fund would take only a few days.)
- makes it very hard/impossible to be polygamous...
- access and use of the data is controlled stritcly by an independent agency.

Do not missunderstand me; I am no fan of government control, and probably more or less as paranoid about loosing my citizen rights as the average slashdot-reader, but I have no bad experiences with "Folkeregisteret", and I have troube imagining how you can run a country without one...

Re:In Norway we have this database

[Harald Paulsen]

If my memory serves me correct IBM is responsible for running the register, or atleast the hardware/software.

But yeah, it's a pretty good system and it proves that goverment keeping a database of citizens isn't neccesarily evil.

PS: All the seperate agencies (like child protection) have their own system, likewise with medical institutions, so these data aren't connected. There is also a law in place banning coorperations to request their customers SSN unless it's absolutely neccesary for identification.

Same scheme in the UK

[cardpuncher]

A similar scheme (http://www.politics.co.uk/public-services/hodge-c hildrens-database-will-not-be-it-disaster-$7765060 .htm) is being planned for the UK. It follows the high-profile death of an abused child who was "known" to a variety of agencies who failed to communicate with each other. Whilst the motives appear to be virtuous, the possible implications of the scheme are serious and the benefits extremely dubious.

There is a reason

[morie]

Although I do not neccessarily agree with the method, there is a reason for this

The Netherlands have seen a sharp increase of parents killing their children in recent years. In many of these cases, it was found that there were definite signals which were known to one agency but not communicated with another agency that had the power to prevent the tragedy.

This is a measure to prevent these incidents.

Ow, come on...

[ds9]

... don't be to hard on us! Our gouverment (at least thats what they call themselves), is really impulse. Something happens, and a few days later, they come up with some insame proposal to counteract it, not thinking of the bigger consequences. Only exception: is something happens internally. Then they make a report stating how bad everything is. Present it, and say thery are glad to have such a report, because it shows things the way they are. And then... nothing happens... Oh well, for now, we'll have to live with it. Hope it doesn't take to long...

Re:Ow, come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully all the pain ends this afternoon...
Or at least, we hopefully will lose minister Dommer.

Re:Ow, come on...

[ds9]

Lol, nice spelling of Do..er ;)

Don't count on it though!

Powered by...

[SStrife]

Dutch Citizen Tracking Programme .. Powered by Google

Wrong!

[Uukrul]

Trivial example, if you want to borrow money from a bank, then the bank would have good reason to query your PODS for information about your financial history.

This example is fobiden by the Data Protection Law in Europe. So it can't be done. And really can't be done, I work for local public entities and data protection its a must do.

Cradle to the grave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are they keeping the information 'from the cradle to the grave' if it is going to be used for troubled teens?

Denmark already did this...

[dybdahl]

In Denmark, we already have a system that works almost the same way. Everybody is registered centrally, and all the data from the article is present, and even if we don't have a "flag system", we do have so much cooperation between responsible data managers, that the effect is the same: troubled children are spotted quickly.

However, finances make it hard to take proper care of all the children that really need care, and therefore we still see tragedies.

+5 Informative

[Uukrul]

Had somebody had the ability to see all these warnings together, that tragedy might have been prevented.

Good point.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[shanen]

I already covered your second point, but I'll expand upon it. When they store the information on your machine, they can add a checksum that will prevent you from tampering with it. If that is not sufficient, they could include a condition of the loan that you allow them to encrypt the file before storing it on your machine. They would retain the decryption key, and would still need to ask you for the file and explain why they wanted it at any future time. (In general, most of these information requests could be handled and enforced automatically by your personal privacy policy, which you would also create on your PODS. I'm also taking a bit of liberty in assuming that the backup issue has been resolved, but that's a separate issue with many possible solutions. Another aspect I don't want to go farther into right now is how broadcast requests can simulate the data centralization issue--since there are always at least two parties to each commercial transaction. However the answers to those queries do not need to persist beyond the completion of a new transaction.)

Your first point is at the heart of my comment. Of course the people who have your information will not voluntarily give it up. Knowledge is power, and ceteris paribus, of course they (the corporations and the governments) will prefer to maximize their own power over we, the peasants. (Okay, grammatically it should be "us" there, but you surely know why I want the "we" form.) The laws to require them not to keep the information would be new, but the legal principle is not. This is actually the natural extension of the Bill of Rights protections against illegal search and seizure, and the requirements that the police show good cause to an impartial judge before they intrude upon your person and your property.

What is happening now is that technology is changing in ways that are making those protections meaningless. We need to establish borders for personal privacy, or these important rights will become meaningless. Or are you ready to live in a world where everything about you is public knowledge? From birth, considering this new Dutch system...

This is for your own protection

[sonictheboom]

so stop worrying....

talk about lack of privacy

[bxbaser]

now your doctor can look at your police records and police your medical records and schools can look at anything they want to.
Ive met people from every branch above that i wouldnt trust with my dogs name.
I guess they will just blindly trust everyone to keep that information confidential.
Not to mention talk about profiling every teacher will look over the new students to see which ones they wont like, sames them the trouble of making that decision based upon the person.

Well, that's just f'ing great!

[Willeh]

I can feel the glove up my ass already :(.

Re:Well, that's just f'ing great!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not a glove...

Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR info

[shanen]

The strong evidence of your new Subject: (which I returned to the original Subject:) is that you're just a troll. If so, please mark me as foe and we'll gladly ignore each other.

If you are sincere, then I ask you to explain what you mean. What is the legal distinction between a bank asking you to complete a loan application that reveals some information about your financial history, and the bank's computer asking your PODS to reveal certain information in support of your request for a loan? (There are various other provisions that are also equal in the two situations. For example, you will still need to provide proof of your identity in both cases, and the bank will still need to check the accuracy of any data you provide, either directly or via your PODS.)

Providing a link to a news article about the passage of a law with a short summary is not a sufficient answer.

I'm not quite sure.

[Mustang Matt]

Actually the reference to a pedophile was partially in response to someone else's post under this story that said this information would be a hayday for pedophiles. I'm not actually sure how or why, but I was thinking of a way to block whatever information one might gain from this sort of system. I should have replied to the parent that mentioned it because now I can't find it.

Old stuff - in Denmark

[jandersen]

As far as I can tell, this is more or less what we have been used to in Denmark for most of my life; I have had a 'CPR number' (CPR = 'Central Person Register') for at least 35 years, if not longer. The system has its ups and downs; yes, the state can always find you and they can and will use it against you; though when I say 'the state' I mean the kind of people that work in the state bureaucracy. Not always the kind of people I would choose to trust, but then I don't have to, since I don't get the choice.

On the positive side it is more comfortable and safe in many ways. The hospitals can always find all your medical records, etc etc. There are situation where you will be glad that you can always be found.

But, all in all, I don't like it. Take social security - if I have an accident and can't work, the state will know, and I will get as much help as possible to get on with my life, and even a pension - that is definitely very good. On the other hand, if I then after a while find that I can earn a little to supply my income, the state will automatically cut your pension accordingly - this is bad, because it means that I'll think 'Why should I bother?'

Of course some will say that this is not because the state has a file on you, but the truth is that it enables the more anal-retentive of the state's beancounters (ie the majority) to take your money away if you are too alive, in effect knocking you down. The only (legal) way to counter this kind of shite is to change the laws - and as a result the Danish social laws are now incredibly complex - and tend to change very often as well.

Remember when...

[cybernezumi]

...they threatened "this will go on your permanent record" and it terrified your young, naive soul? Now they mean it...

It sure won't help the children...

[martijnd]

Anyone who still has the illusion that the Dutch have any better record, or are any less incompetent than other nations in handling things like child protection should read this article in this mornings Volkskrant newspaper on all the mistakes made in a murder-suspect case.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/1126760833908. html

Just to translate the first paragraph:

It can't become any lonelier for a boy of 11. Your girlfriend has been murdered, the police doesn't believe you, and think you are responsible. The inspector assigned to assist him becomes a hard-cop interagator. The child phychologist there to protect him secrectly tapes "confidential" conversations and passes them on to the police.

A first child phychologist supports the boys story , but is then ignored and replaced by another who then continues to support the police in their interogations for days on end -- for crying out loud, the kid is 11.

Even when the police had already already arrested another suspect for the murder, the statements don't match the police "picture" of what happened and the boy is continuedly pressured to modify his story.

A bit misleading

[Anspen]

The tone of the article suggest something that not really the case.

First of all they won't suddenly start keeping a single, giant 1984 record. What they are proposing is to link the existing records of different agencies.

Second, while the road the hell is paved with good intentions they do have a good reason for this step: in many cases tragedy could have been avoided if agencies had known important information that others had. An example is the rise of loverboys in the Netherlands: young men who use the emotional fragility of teenage girls to get them in to prostitution. Often the police knows about the men, but doesn't know what or who are the likely targets, while child protection services knows the girls but has no clue about the men.

Thirdly: the right to privacy is protected much stronger in the Netherlands that in the US. As a result identity theft is almost never a problem and there are very few cases known of clear abuse of government databases.

It's certainly something to be watchfull about but the step in itself isn't too worrying.

Re:A bit misleading

[Anonymous Coward]

> First of all they won't suddenly start keeping a single, giant 1984 record. What they are proposing is to link the existing records of different agencies.

    There is no difference here. If you are able to retrieve whole bunch of records from multiple DBs you don't notice that it is multiple DBs - for you it is a single record.

> Second, while the road the hell is paved with good intentions they do have a good reason for this step: in many cases tragedy could have been avoided if agencies had known important information that others had. An example is the rise of loverboys in the Netherlands: young men who use the emotional fragility of teenage girls to get them in to prostitution. Often the police knows about the men, but doesn't know what or who are the likely targets, while child protection services knows the girls but has no clue about the men.

      Totally wrong. If both records (molester and girl) do not have a pointers to each other then both records will be unlinked in single/joined DB and it is impossible to find which girl from molester record. And another scenario - if molester record has a pointer to girl's name then there is no problem to pick up a phone an call child care agency to check the state of that.

      And in any case - if there is a link between - why this guy is still not behind the bars ?

      But I can answer you - why this DB is wanted: the lazy police want to find people with troubled past fast ! So, if some crime happens a police can find fast some people with criminal past which has unfortune to fit crime case (live in area, has a work in this area, was involved in some incendent with similar pattern etc). So - good luck to be not a second sort of citizen by getting into that DB !

> Thirdly: the right to privacy is protected much stronger in the Netherlands that in the US. As a result identity theft is almost never a problem and there are very few cases known of clear abuse of government databases.

      No comments on religion believe.

Re:A bit misleading

[kbonapart]

Reply to First Point: That link *IS* the big list. If you have a link to every agency, and thier lists, when you search for someone by first and last name, and come up with who you are looking for...that is what I call a "list". Whether 1984 or otherwise, a list is a list.

Reply to Third Point: No, you meant to say it wasn't much of a problem until now. That kind of access...I shudder to think what would happen if the DVD of the Population of Holland started being sold in Hong Kong back alleys.

yeah...

[spottedkangaroo]

I bet every government does this -- to some extent. This is the one being honest about it.

Brave new world

[commodoresloat]

Knowing the Dutch, and the way this is worded, it seems to goal of this is noble.

Yes, sure, because the Dutch "nobly" smoke weed and have sex with hookers.

Face it, it doesn't matter how "noble" a government's intentions, because the bottom line is, governments don't have intentions - people do - and the people whose noble intentions may have created a particular government are not necessarily the ones still in charge. Giving excessive power to governments (or other ultimately unaccountable organizations such as corporations) is always a bad idea, and every bit of power such organizations assume should be explicitly justified at all times rather than just assumed on the basis of the government's "noble" intentions. Because such power is always prone to abuse, and it is always more likely to be abused than it is to be used for the benefit of the people.

In this particular case, it seems even more of a bad idea, since the information at stake would be easily available not just to "the government" but to any corrupt or unscrupulous individual working with the government, or to any random hacker with the time and motivation to access the data. This database is the ultimate pedo-file.

Re:Brave new world

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, sure, because the Dutch "nobly" smoke weed and have sex with hookers."

Nope, only idiotic tourists do. Besides, statistics in the past have shown that the Dutch youth are (ab)using weed and/or other drugs way less than, for instance, the kids of the USA (or France, for the matter).

I still don't see why this database would be the ultimate pedo-file. I mean, does one need a database to find out where kids live? Couldn't he just go to a school? Or am I passing out valuable information now?

Re:Brave new world

[dutchd00d]

Yes, sure, because the Dutch "nobly" smoke weed and have sex with hookers.

Nah, that's just something we provide for the tourists.

Orwell was right -- Big Brother IS watching you!

[thc69]

Egads, man! I searched this discussion and only found two mentions of Big Brother, and one reply that discussed the TV show named Big Brother.

This isn't just the first step towards Orwell's "Big Brother Is Watching You!". This is IT! Another post mentioned secret files held by military and such; but this is centralized, out in the open, complete, and will certainly be oppressive, even if it's not flaunted by huge, everpresent murals of Big Brother watching you.

I, for one, do NOT welcome their always-surveilling overlords!

From TFA:

Until now, schools and police have been unable to communicate with each other about truancy records and criminality, which are often linked.

Well, how about a system that allows them to share data on demand? Such systems exist in the US, and seem reasonable.

Throw the ring into the fire

[Anonymous Coward]

Just one more country compiling a massive database on its citizens, and no doubt looking to hook it up to other DB's. One Query to Rule Them All.

Seems to be happening everywhere these days. Today the Guardian mentions that the UK ID card might be compatible with our newly installed chip and PIN card readers... now wouldn't that be nice? Once these databases get underway, they seem to want to push their tentacles into every part of your life.

If I was a developer working on this stuff, I think I might consider leaving a hidden shutoff switch buried in the code, if I could. Imagine, for example, that you are working on a system that monitors the use of smartcards. You could throw in a few lines to watch for, say, 3 particular different unique card serial numbers. If one of those 3 cards are presented to a reader on the 7th of the month, then the system stops generating meaningful data and instead, say, randomly re-outputs cached historical data wrapped with new timestamps and hashes. Perhaps if the card is presented to readers 3 times on the 7th, and 3 times on the 13th, then the system turns destructive and seeks to destroy everything it can reach, and then itself. You then take the only 3 smartcards in the world that can produce these effects (imagine they're cards produced during testing, and scheduled for destruction, etc), and you keep one, and pass the other two onto 2 (very) trusted and likeminded friends - preferably with unobvious links to you, seperated by geography.

It could only ever work as a temporary measure - once deployed, backups of your code would be searched and the offending code removed. And, if you've triggered the code, then it's probably because you've found yourself living under a true fascist regime, so you too will be hunted down and 'removed'. BUT, it would open up a temporary data blindspot that a resistance could use. (And in a theoretical future society where *every bit of data* is collected and monitored, that blindspot would be absolutely vital).

It's a little extreme, perhaps, but it forms a big red button that could be pressed if it was really, really needed. Think of the countries that were invaded by Nazi Germany - some of them had excellent records on their citizens, and those excellent records were very helpful indeed for the Nazis when they were rounding up the Jews. There's a lot of Jews who would have thanked someone for pressing the red button when the panzers came to town.

Just a thought.

And Now For A Totally Different View

[bookhappy]

Leaving the privacy and political issues far behind... as a former Early Medieval Historian, I find this project absolutely fascinating and exciting. Imagine having this comprehensive database to examine in the future. So much of what we understand about England in the past comes from the Doomsday Book data, and this would be so much more comprehensive. (Think of the dissertations!)

DC wanted something similar

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of years ago my non-technical business partner started asking me technical questions about how to go about setting up a data sharing/aggregation system for the entire DC government.

DC was ordered by a federal judge to do a better job providing services to children. The brief was to connect all the departments; health, children's services, mental health, schools, et cetera. It was also to include data from the courts and police. Each department was to receive requests for data on a certain person and in return share whatever that departments policy allowed. While the system focused on children, it was recognised that at the very least the children's parents or caregivers would have to be present in the system too.

I was of two minds about it, because on the one hand, why in the hell would I want to work on such a boondoggle. On the other, at least I could have done my damnedest to make sure it wasn't Inherently Evil.

We didn't get the gig, naturally. They instead brought in a "big" outfit, who no doubt threw suits at the problem until it went away, collecting millions in consulting fees and producing no work. Lots of white papers and memos though. They were a "safe" choice of course. Nobody's gonna get fired for bringing in big-time suits. A small outfit may lack in command and control, but what would you rather have: Software or Memos?

power corrupts

[timmarhy]

absolute power corrupts absolutly. allowing one single entity this level of power over the entire populace is madness.note to self: never move to holland.

So...

[Kuku_monroe]

How do you say: Dont google me Mommy! in dutch?

Injection attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible to craft a name such that the name itself is a sql statement?

Denmark

[Teun]

(This is not to make the Dutch look any better, the Dutch census was indeed of great value to the Nazi's, nor did the Dutch do a good job of making it disappear.)

Sorry to say but the Danish governement of the day behaved disgraceful.
I am a (very) regular visitor of Denmark, again a again I'm surprised by the way the Danes continued their relatively comfortable pre-war life after the German invasion.
Originally it was not even called "Occupation"!

As a matter of fact, the official Danish policy was concidered so distasteful that the country had a hard time to become part of the league of allied nations.

From about 1942 there was a small but very couragious Danish resistance that was able to get most yews out of the country, mainly to Sweden.

Re:Denmark

[ender-]

From about 1942 there was a small but very couragious Danish resistance that was able to get most yews out of the country, mainly to Sweden.

Well that's comforting. I'd hate to think of the damage to the Yew population had they not been evacuated to Sweden. :)

Sorry I just had to.

Re:Denmark

[Teun]

Sorry I just had to.

Oops! :)
No offence!

Yews/jews.

Re:Denmark

[liam_p]

Are you sure?

A quick google search found this -> http://auschwitz.dk/Denmark.htm

seems to tell a different story....

Re:Denmark

[Teun]

I don't think this tells a different story.
The site claims a strong resistance of the Danish population re. the Nazi demands but at the same time it explaines this only happened well into the war.

Especially the governement(s) of just before and during the invasion were quite slack, in those days the king was probably the only exception.

To give an example of the difference between the Danish and the Dutch situation I would like to mention the elections for the Danish parliament during the war, just the thought of having a (supposedly democratic) exercise during occupation is silly.
The outcome was funny as well, virtually the same as just before the war...

UN Convention

[mattr]

Article 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child says:

1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.

Not sure if this applies, it seems pretty vague.

I think this is a very bad move, mainly since this ensures the entire next generation will have a file, (not that they don't already?) which will be accessed by people who are not yet in office or even alive now. But it could be experimented with by starting with individuals in office. It would fit on a CD.

May I have root there..

[Anonymous Coward]

.. please? Royal Dutch/Shell's board members might be a good alter ego for me.

People are not understanding the principle

[Budenny]

The difficulty in principle is surely this: recording in a Government database, for access by anyone, facts about a person which are not legally relevant or legally proven.

For example, in a country with socialised medecine, what is wrong with a central database of treatments an individual has had? That's arguably a service. A social security number allows contributions when working for various employers to be summed and credited. But when we come to the concept of a 'troubled' family, or, as in my previous post, when we start recording the religious affliliations of a person, then we start to have real potential problems. After all, what is a 'troubled' family? Could it be one too preoccupied with vegetarianism, feminism, or naturism, academic excellence, untidiness, or something else a social worker doesn't agree with?

You can see this in the UK, with a recent proposal to track children from families with a criminal record, the idea being to 'support' them - they are after all 'at risk'. You saw it in Holland in 1940, when all an occupier had to do to round up people of a certain religion was use the municipal records.

The problem, surely familiar enough to /. readers, is, how to make sure that what gets in a database is factual, and objective, and relevant to the legally defined objectives of that database, not simply a collection of opinions and rumours to be used for any purpose a reader may choose.

In the end, the only way to sanitize is to keep out certain kinds of data, and this would precisely be stuff about 'troubled' families, whatever they are. Isn't the issue that, if there is a legally established history of child abuse, the penalties have to be got right for that offence, and the legally sanctioned powers of the courts have to be used to safeguard the children. This is what you need - something to tackle the particular problem, not some all inclusive database of...what exactly?

Actually the pedophile's dream

[Anonymous Coward]

...is finding discarded computer disks or backup tapes containing this data.

This page's signature, coincidence?

[Teun]

This page's signature:
Teach children to be polite and courteous in the home, and, when they grow up, they won't be able to edge a car onto a freeway.

Hmm, maybe hand picked?

We have that register in Denmark

[kimhanse]

We have that register here in Denmark, it is regulated by the Danish Act on the Civil Registration System.

http://cpr.dk/Index/dokumenter.asp?o=7&n=0&h=7&t=1 &d=140&s=5

"Section 1. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that

      1. anyone covered by s 3(1), has a civil registry number,
      2. the Civil Registration System (CPR) contains basic personal data about anyone who has a civil registry number,
      3. everyone is nationally registered at the address at which they are actually living or staying, and
      4. the information in CPR can be conveyed expediently to public authorities and private individuals with a justified interest in the same. "

Do you remember?

[ceeam]

Do you remember that Hitachi flash movie? "I'm just a tinyyy little bit!....". Somehow I did when reading this. Strangely appropriate, huh?

Using Children to Open Electronic Files

[ZorchKoala]

Electronic files are notoriously difficult to crack. While it's surprising that infants are rigid enough to break files' husks against, it's good that we're finally getting the darned things open.

s/Gore/Kerry/g

[Anonymous Coward]

Ack, I meant Kerry, not Gore. Shouldn't be typing up /. posts when I'm in a hurry.

Here in Holland ...

[Aceticon]

There is currently a rightwing, conservative party in the government.

They've been busy making it easier for companies, harder for people (taxwise, at least); they've started cracking down on coffeeshops (that's semi-sanctioned places where you can get pot) and closing down redlight districts (legalized prostitution).

So much for the (renowned) dutch tollerance.

Did i mention that the Dutch economy was one of the hardest hit by the latest recession in Europe (and narrowly missed another recession at the end of last year).

As far as i can tell, they're unpopular and will be thrown out on the next elections, though me not being dutch, i don't care that much about dutch politics (i can't vote for parliment here).

Gattica

[Kevin Burtch]

I guess their government REALLY liked the movie Gattica!

Re:Gattica

[Ihlosi]

Gattaca. Gattaca.

No matter how you pronounce the title, if you spell it with any other letters than G, T, A and C, then you're missing the hidden joke.

Guanine

Adenine

Cytosine

Thymine

Re:Gattica

[Kevin Burtch]

Sweet! I never noticed that!

Make me the DBA

[Random Web Developer]

I swear I'm trustworthy :)

No I'm serious, no one service can supposedly see all data from the other services, but some dba's and technicians will have the sa password surely

The road to hell...

[Viol8]

..is paved with good intentions.
 
Karl Marx (and he should know!)

you're spun

[Ender Ryan]

It's about control. What this is describing is getting awful close to totalitarianism. Since when is government supposed to act as parents for its citizens. "It's for the children" is a copout. It doesn't matter how many children this saves. The price is simply too great. That price being the autonomy of individuals.

I agree with you about the U.S. But forms of totalitarianism get ushered in in many different ways. Look at history. This is no different. The Nazi party in Germany largely gained control of the population at large under the guise of safety and security. Don't be a fool.

Quothe Dr. Evil

[da3dAlus]

"How about NO, ya crazy Dutch bastard?!"

At least the Dutch people have a say in the matter

[Mostly a lurker]

Like most others here, I think the risks of such databases outweigh the benefits.

However, the fact that the creation of this database is a matter of public debate indicates that The Netherlands is one of the most democratic countries in the world. In most countries, these databases are gathered covertly and the public has no say in the matter. And, in the US, things have become worse since the time of Edgar Hoover, not better.

Yikes!

[Mike Schiraldi]

This is doubleplus ungood.

It's George Bush's Fault!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, something that the average SlashBot doesn't whine and moan that Bush had a hand in it. Waaaaaaaa

Ve haff vays off spotting tvubbled kinter

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeesh! and I thought the US was becoming a police state! Well maybe it will prevent any more young girls from disappearing in Aruba.

Even here Bush sucks

[beforewisdom]

America has been trumped again, just when we thought we were number 1.

We thought we were the tops in pissing on the concepts of freedom and privacy. After all, we have George Bush and the Patriot Act.

The Dutch have trumped us. Turns out the Bush administration is not even the best at sucking.

I now understand the slogan "vote for cthlulus, why settle for the lesser of two evils?"

Exactly!

[joshsnow]

Whilst the motives appear to be virtuous, the possible implications of the scheme are serious and the benefits extremely dubious.

Exactly - especially when this is coupled - as it inevitably will be - with the national ID card.

I'm tired of the current government thinking that technology is an infallible silver bullet.

On the other hand, if the procurement and implementation are handled with the usual time/money wasting ineptness, maybe the database and the id card schemes will fail.

Permenant Record

[Anonymous Coward]

This brings the phrase "That's going in your permenant record" to a whole new level.
Mike

1984

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Hello.

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Back your numbers up or STFU.
2) False dichotomy.

Related: your child in the Pentagon's database

[beforewisdom]

... and how to get your child out of the Pentagon's database;

http://www.leavemychildalone.org/

Privacy is dead

[shutdown -p now]

Like it or not, but you are (or will soon, depending on your location) live in that world. Get used to it.

Look out...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is going on your permanent record!

Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

What difference does tracking a person from cradle to grave if the Dutch government won't prosecute a crime? Joran Van Der Sloot admitted that he had sex with Natalie Holloway while she was drugged. That's rape, folks. Now he's completely free. Some fucking legal system those Dutch freaks have.

All I can say is, you may want to think twice before you come to Alabama, Joran.

Re:Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

she was a slut anyhow, who cares?

Not a joke...

[p.rican]

This was the original draft of their plan

Isn't this the

[slapout]

same place where a doctor can give you a deadly drug without telling you?

Re:One has to ask

[symbolic]

Why would it require ten organizations knowing about each other in order to save these kids? All any ONE of them needs to know is what's HAPPENING. That's it. The push here is to try and solve problems related to competence, with more problems brought on by the abuse of technology. It's the same dynamic driving the expansion of the US surveilance state, with the new "information fusion centers," and access to the financial transactions of all Americans.

There were some very real and identifiable flaws in the way that pre-9/11 government agencies conducted themselves. Newly-acquired abilities to spy on every citizen won't change that - it only means that the people in our government have MORE information they can abuse with the same degree of incompetence.

Government_agencies + Data = null

[boyfaceddog]

I have worked for a government agency (the Minnesota Dept of Health) which had many varied and incompatible databases. All of these DBs were created by individuals and each was created to suit a SPECIFIC need. Over time, it was thought by some misguided and short-term leaders that all of this data could be consolidated and used to better track the health trends of the citzens of the state (read: keep tabs on the money). Five years and hundreds of thousands of Tax Payer's Dollars later, there is no 'One DB to Rule Them All'.

Have no fear, government incompetence is a variable that rises and falls with the effort expended by the employees, elected or not. Government intelligence, on the other hand, is a constant, regaurdless of the number of people in the government. So, while it requires little intelligence and only average competence as a programmer to create the All-Seeing DB, it also requires great effort from large numbers of people. We may all rest easy.

How bad would this be if...

[PKFC]

it was secure? If you made it secure with all your open source-ness? If you stuck it offline in one government office?

Sure this thing will probably not be the most secure server ever, but if it was, would this be such an issue?

Hmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

a tool to spot and protect the troubled kids of the future

So I guess every Dane is going to be flagged?

Why yes...(wink wink, nudge nudge)

[Sfing_ter]

Jolly good, (wink wink), we should've thought of that,(nudge nudge), but we have a constitution to stop that (wink wink, nudge nudge), I UNDERSTAND, Bob's yer uncle!

Just scary

[Anonymous Coward]

This is scary. Even though the goal presently seems worthy.

But what happens, for example, when cheap accurate DNA analysis becomes available? And when certain genes indicating predilection for behavior problems get isolated? Well, then DNA analysis will become mandatory and the results will be included in this db. Of course, it's still ok because it is to help the children.

What then if genes indicating higher intellegence or leadership ability get isolated? Will these children start to receive benefits not afforded to others? I know that in Germany, kids get put in different school programs starting at a fairly early age, so that by graduation, their future employment area has already been determined (lived there, this is based on talks with kids in their schools).

I just see this program as eventually being used for starting class differentiation earlier. Not something that I would want.

Unfortunately people, your government is not your friend, often. The price of a fair and just government is eternal vigilence and eternal action when there are signs of deviation from this ideal.

Re:Just scary

[Ihlosi]

I know that in Germany, kids get put in different school programs starting at a fairly early age, so that by graduation, their future employment area has already been determined (lived there, this is based on talks with kids in their schools).

Eh, that's maybe a bit too simplified. You can always switch the branch of the secondary school you're in if you qualify, and earn any school diploma even later in your life. If you find out at 30 that maybe learning a trade was a mistake, there's always the option of going to university.
Heck. Even if you started out with "lowest" branch of secondary school and learned a trade, you can still work yourself up to getting a degree in Law and become Chancellor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der

Dutch

[Anonymous Coward]

"There is only one thing I hate more than people who can't tolerate other cultures: the Dutch"--Austin Powers

Re:Dutch

[Gta-Klue]

NO NO NO NO!
It was his fazsha that said that!

Dr. Evil: His what?
Number 1: His farger, Dr. Evil
Dr. Evil: His farger? Farger? OH! OH, his FATHER, FATHER! I don't speak freaky deaky dutch porn boy!

Re:One has to ask

[lxs]

That is precisely what has happened here. Partly because of cuts in funding and related lack of staff and partly because of gross incompetence by the social workers concerned, these children were passed off from agency to agency with no one taking responsability. In the subsequent inquiry no blame was apportioned (which is usual in these cases) and no one even lost their job for something that would be considered criminal negligence in many other countries. Social workers still are not accountable for their actions, one reason being given was the fear that it would be difficult to get competent staff if they were to be held accountable for their action or inaction (I wish I were joking, but I'm not.)

This is a mere cosmetic patch to cover a crumbling system, and a nice pretext for a united database for all people.

It is easy to subject children to this, and when they grow up, we'll just keep the records and pretty soon everyone will be accounted for.

Troubled politicians, lawyers, and bureaucrats

[webjonesin]

Maybe they could use it to track those troubled children and get them the help they need before they become troubled politicians, lawyers, and bureaucrats.

Correction

[ifwm]

"children die because social services are hugely incompetent."

This should read "because PARENTS are hugely incompetent"

You're welcome.

Re:Correction

[molotov02]

:) completely true.

In Soviet Russia...

[inKubus]

...your file keeps you.

This development represents a step backwards. Think about WWII-era dossiers and secret police and stuff like that. Information is powerful for a government who wishes to utilize it. It can be a powerful force of good but the potential for misuse is very high.

Because if the wrong person gets into power, he/she can take this information, mine it, and then act swiftly to remove from society anyone who opposes the views of the government. The result of these purges would be to cement the leadership for a long time, increase public support (although it may forment revolution underneath) and create a society of fear.

Such things have already been happening in America, what with the "Homoland Security" department and credit bureaus, etc. To see this development in Europe should not be surprising.

The funny thing is that Europe has experienced this sort of thing in the past, with the rule of the Nazis and in eastern europe under the iron curtain (not to mention other fascists and going back in history even further, emperors). You'd think they'd see it coming and avoid it.

The problem is that programs like this always start with some benevolent idea and turn into some tool for a sick, powerhungry individual or group.

Look at the credit bureaus in America again: a file is kept on every individual in America and rates your history of employment, credit, etc. Banks use it to literally determine the price they charge you for their services (in this case, credit; although insurance companies, hospitals, and even _employers_ use this data to determine your eligibility). This system is horribly broken and keeps people who make mistakes early in life down while the upper class really are not participants in the system (having cash to pay for most things).

There are numerous other examples of systems such as educational transcripts, medical records, driving records, etc. that drastically affect our everyday lives.

These systems are all so very broken with old and outdated and incorrect data that a HUGE amount of lost productivity occurs everyday as people try to correct or update their data, etc. There is no legally prescribed process to appeal data in many of these systems. Even the system in place for credit is highly flawed because you are considered to be "guilty" of bad credit until you actively defend yourself to the credit bureaus and get them to correct your file.

To get children into this is simply sealing their fate from day one. If you are born in a lower class family, you will stay there. There is no possibility for advancement, even after you're an adult and you work to try to better yourself beyond what you were when you were your parent's children.

This is a very very bad thing, and I don't think the benefits will ever outweigh the possible risks. It's here, however, and everyone needs to know that you are being watched; every move you make, in ANY country, will be recorded.

What will you do? Will you bow down to the system, subjugate yourself to the increasingly oppressive laws? Or will you choose not to, and ruin your life and lives of your family members for generations to come?

Wow, this sounds a lot like Soviet Russia.

But why stop there?

[N3wsByt3]

Everytime I see people defending yet another privacy-intrusion, it makes my stomach turn. It's *always* with the "it's really no big deal", "they did it before, only now they are doing it more efficiently" or especially the "it's to save the children" mantrum. EVERY goddamned time, it's always the same crap. And every time it goes just 'one step' further, those same people are saying it's not a slippery slope. Morons.

But, hey, why stop there? I mean really, if it's all for beneficial goals like saving the children and reducing crime, why not immediately go to more 'efficient' methods that are possible now, or in the not-too-far-future? Ah, what a brave new world full of technology will there be, in 20 or 40 years?

In the future, why not implant a device in a person? Why not make this device obligatory, and give it a GPS-like system, which tracks your movements every single day, 24/24, your whole life. Possibly with live biometric data, if possible. I mean, imagine what benefits it would give! Imagine the lives it would save! The crimes it would help to solve! The near complete protection of kids it would give!

And why not make it obligatory for every single person in the EU or USA to give DNA samples and have that stored in a giant database? I mean, just imagine the HUGE benefits it would give to crime-research, especially in sex-offenses. Why, one could pinpoint the culprit in no time! And wombined with the above, you'll know where he was and where he is right now... what could be more easy for the police?

In fact, most childabuse occurs at home...so, why not install hidden camera's in every household? I mean, it would virtually elliminate any childabuse at home. (Yeah, it would require some fancy automatic 'abuse'-recognition system, but who knows, in 40 years?).

In any case *NO ONE* can deny the benefits it would bring to solving crimes, and preventing abuse and the 'saving of children', if every citizen in the world could be tracked 24/24 for his entire life. If it's allright as long as it's for a 'noble' purpose, nothing can be said against these future privacy-invasions by the current proponents, when the technology is advanced far enough.

It will all save children and help fight crime, after all.

what a joke

[Anonymous Coward]

And so what if one malicious worker has exclusive rights to view several hundred children? It doesn't matter if they have access to the whole database or not, even a "small pecentage" could be several hundred or thousand children.

try reading this:"As a privacy safeguard, no single person or agency will be able to access all contents of a file."

...looking over your post, your other comments are half-assed too...could you try to read the articles until you have something to comment about? Is the first post really worth sounding like a complete idiot?

The Dutch are NUTS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where to start? The Dutch is their infinite "wisdom" are now also killing the elderly and infirm by starving them to death. All in the name of "efficiency"...I guess? Any of you that agree with this...put your money where your mouth is and move to the Netherlands for your retirement. Maybe the Dutch marketing for tourism should say "Live the magic of the movies....Soylent Green first hand experience"

Creating a database to track people is another Gestapo move. It gives the irresponsible (i.e the Dutch government) the means to create "hell on earth" for their populace. Maybe not today....but the tools would be in place when a loony dictator gets "democratically elected" Give a knife to a surgeon, and he will cut to heal you....give a knife to Dr. Mengele and the results will be predictable.
Never mind the fact that it's the parents responsibility and interest to protect their kids. You don't need a database to protect children, just tough sentencing laws for scumbags who abuse or kidnap children. How about more police patrols to protect neighborhoods. But guess what, the Dutch laws are some of the most lax and liberal laws in the world when it comes to putting those people away.
And why in the world would you give the government the power to track someone from cradle to grave. Generally speaking the government has 3 things going against it. It's a big mess, because it has no financial incentives to get better (it cannot go bankrupt, because if it does it will change to laws to say it didn't) By it's very nature it's politics personified....and you all know how effective businesses are when politics has the upper hand. Last but not least, generally speaking the government is the refuge for the folks who...to use the euphemism...are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
What a disaster for the Dutch people.

There are only two things that I hate ...

[DrugCheese]

those who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.

Lord of the Databases

[Anonymous Coward]

Three Databases for the Banks under the sky,
      Seven for the Terrorists in their prisons of stone,
Nine for the Citizens doomed to die,
      One for GW Bush on his dark throne
In Washington where the Shadows lie.
      One Database to rule them all, One Database to find them,
      One Database to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Washington where the Shadows lie.

Socialism

[eventhorizon5]

Just Marxist Socialism at work again...

excerpts from the Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manife sto.html):

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
...
"1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
...
"6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State"


In this infrastructure model, information on each person is owned by the State for the "public" purpose (this is taken from more broad points made in the manifesto, but those listed above are just the basics).

In this sense, pedophiles will actually own (in the idea of public collective ownership) the information of these people, including kids. What better way to solve the problem? lol.

-eventhorizon

An appropriate quote

[dark_requiem]

`You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.'
- Lyndon Johnson

A Bit More Enlightenment

[virg_mattes]

> For everybody's talk of "nightmarish situations", I have yet to hear a single actual nightmarish situation that is actually a result of a database like this.

This lacks validity because until now, such a database hasn't really existed, so saying that there are no real-world cases is much like the folks in 1940 saying nuclear weapons aren't dangerous because there wasn't a single actual situation where they were dangerous. The ramifications of how such a tool benefits its users and those whose information is stored must be weighed against the possibility of abuse of that central repository, and how much worse that abuse can make other situations. Others here have referred to the Nazi abuse of Dutch citizenship records to target Jews, and in that particular real world case more Jews died because their religion was stored in a "database" than would have if it wasn't. I ask you to consider what possible benefit that piece of information provided, given that it became quite a liability in the wrong hands.

> It works for your situations too.

This is a morass of straw men, and I suspect you know it. Just to take the first one, voting has a significant, proven and obvious benefit to a huge percentage of the population, so you'd need to demonstrate one Hell of a bad side-effect to overrule that. In the case of this benefit, you must consider whether protecting the few that this step will protect warrants such a wholesale risk to the population in general. Unifying a large number of databases to prevent a few cases from falling through the cracks sounds like a great idea, but I present that they haven't proven on a large scale that it'll work as well as any other step they may consider, and that it adds a great deal of externality to the mix.

> I'm sorry, but your argument seems to boil down to "the government should be bureaucratic because if it operated efficiently, if it turned evil, it would be evil in an efficient manner".

I disagree. This argument boils down to "will forcing everyone in the country to give up some portion of their privacy be worth the benefit that the unifying of databases will give?" When you take away the "think of the children" mentality, you're left with a lot of centralized information and only the Dutch government's word that it'll never be abused. If you think it's about the children, then perhaps you'd like to reconcile how "gradle to grave" fits with protecting only children, except in cases where someone dies before age 18. How does allowing this to work throughout a person's life protect them after they leave mom and dad? Consider this: thirty years ago, it was simply inconceivable for someone to use a Social Security number to steal another person's credit identity. Now, it's so commonplace that experts advise not using it for an ID number. Add to that that Social Security was put forward with the promise that it wouldn't become an ID, but would only to be used for Social Security. Now, it's against the law not to put your SSN on your income tax forms, and DMVs and state colleges use them for driver license and student ID numbers, respectively. Now, reconcile this with your thought that it's just a matter of efficiency. Can you promise the people subject to this database that the unifying of information won't expose them to risks that we don't even know about yet? Can anyone? If you can't, then you have little ground to say that those espousing the risks are just extremists.

Virg

Re:A Bit More Enlightenment

[Anonymous Coward]

This lacks validity because until now, such a database hasn't really existed, so saying that there are no real-world cases...

You misunderstand. I'm not complaining that there aren't any real world cases. I'm saying that nobody's ever described a hypothetical situation where such a database would result in a nightmarish outcome.

For example, if Hitler had a database like this, the real problem is that there's a genocidal maniac running the country.

in that particular real world case more Jews died because their religion was stored in a "database" than would have if it wasn't.

The database is not the important factor there. You are basically saying, "if the government was less efficient, then he wouldn't have been able to kill as many Jews". I agree. And I agree that the "database" made the government more efficient.

However efficiency in itself is not a bad thing and not a thing to be avoided. Your argument, like I said, rests on the premise that governments should be inefficient all the time for the exceptional situation when the worst case scenario comes into play. A database is just a minor factor in that equation. Ban all cars - after all, if Hitler had to import his own cars, then he'd have been slower and not killed as many Jews. Ban all telephones - if Hitler had to construct his own telecommunications systems, he's have been less effective in killing Jews. And so on. Hitler was certainly capable of massacring Jews without a database, it just made him more efficient in this case - as did everything else intended to make a government more efficient.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Terrorism didn't start yesterday...

[cr0sh]

No, terrorism didn't start with the current US administration, and we weren't just attacked "yesterday". The beginning of terrorism in the face of US interests started a long time ago, most likely in response to US military bases being left in place in certain regions directly after WW2, coupled with the beginnings of Israel soon thereafter and the US support of such a nacent state at the time.

Time and again, those we are currently fighting have told us exactly what they want, what will stop all of this madness, yet we never stop to actually listen. We never stop to think and possibly try such a scenario. What they want is really simple: for the western nations to get the fuck out of Dodge. That is, for us to pack up all of our military bases and such, and leave their countries for them to govern without oversight of western nations. They feel they can do a good job. So why don't we try it?

For the middle east, there is only one answer why: a steady supply of oil to the west. That is why we (western nations) are so entrenched in the middle east, to ensure a steady, dependable supply of that which keeps our society from collapsing. Now, certainly, we don't get all of our oil from the middle east, not even a majority of it. IIRC, we get only 15-20 percent from the middle east. But, can you imagine the chaos that would erupt in the west if that flow was cut off or reduced significantly?

During WW2, there was severe rationing of oil in the west, for the war effort mainly. Afterwards, the west needed to ensure a supply of oil, and the middle east was where it was at, which is why (probably) the new nation of Israel was so heavily support, to provide a toehold on the region initially. Even so, we weren't that dependent on such oil, so it wasn't a huge priority. The oil embargo and shortages of the 1970's, combined with our greater need of oil, showed us that better stability was needed in the region. So we reacted by bringing stability.

I am also certain that between that period of time and now, the oil companies also ran the numbers through the Hubbert calculations and realized when world oil peak was to occur. Today, they don't even bother to conceal this fact, they mention it in most of their SEC paperwork filings (why the media is mostly hush on it is anybody's guess) - but, back then - they probably only shared it with certain individuals high up in government offices, and as things went forward, a certain family heavily involved in oil, who also had to know about such things, became heavily involved and successful in securing the highest government office in the United States (Clinton was an abberation).

We stay in the region to control the source of the oil - to "stabilize" the region (when in actuality nothing is stable there) - so that we have a steady flow of oil, and the 1970's oil crisis isn't repeated.

They all know the numbers now, even if the American people don't. It all relates to keeping the flow of oil going (not to get cheap oil - the oil companies don't want that - they want the west to pay as much as possible, but they also want the product to flow so there is something to pay for, without the instability of flow and prices jumping up and down due to lack of regional stability). By keeping a military presence there, the west assures that control and flow of the oil will continue, and that profits for the oil companies will continue to rise (and having a oil man in the highest office in the US helps immensely in these goals). The oil companies don't care about due process or inalienable rights of the people - profit is above all else, and corporations of any type can operate and make profits from any region with any government, short of an anarchic region, and even in those cases, money can be made. Is it any wonder that western nations are starting to resemble, government-wise, their corporate master's internal governance systems? Furthermore, since many people (especially those who tend to vote) work in such corporations, these same people seem to vote for further similar

Re:Terrorism didn't start yesterday...

[josh82]

"In this time of high gas prices, plus since it is so cool out, I don't use the A/C in my truck. It wastes gas, and it is perfectly cool enough out with my windows rolled down, and I enjoy the breeze as I drive. It pisses me off to see so many other drivers (not all of them, but definitely the majority) not doing this, driving with the windows up and the A/C running. They are wasting fuel. They are wasting oil."

I may be wrong about this (of course), but I was always under the impression that the extra drag created by the wind blowing through open windows pretty much made any difference in fuel economy negligible vis-à-vis having the windows rolled up and using the A/C.

Re:Terrorism didn't start yesterday...

[cr0sh]

Perhaps it relates to the size of the engine vs. the size of the vehicle, which would make my point unfair to some people. I drive a 4-banger Ranger, and switching the A/C on is like strapping a trailer on the hitch. The engine has to work a lot harder to keep the A/C running, etc - and my fuel economy suffers a lot as a result. Now, perhaps if I had a six or eight cylinder engine, things would be different in that the A/C would have a negligable effect - but then, I would be using more gas to run the engine anyhow...

Where to store a person's data

[SwimsWithTheFishes]

On the person. With the person. Let the person control access to that data.

Do not aggregate data about a person with other persons' data in one place. If the purpose of the data is to help the person, then aggregation into big data bases is NOT required.

The storeage of such data off your personal device is strickly limited to time-frame necessary to interact with that person, and just the sub-set of data needed. For example, data about a single credit card that the person owns that is used to buy a pair of shoes. Then the store after charging that person's account, destroys their copies of that persons credit card data. They dont' need it to get paid after the charge is made.

The social service agency that wants to see if the child has a pattern of "accidents" could see that on the personal device. For example, reviewing all health care data, to see if the child has had multiple broken bones.

Each use of the person's personal data device could cause an update (to lower your credit limit, etc). Hash totals could be kept on the "main database" such that changing the personal device limit, without connected to the "main database" would invalidate the use of the bit of data. That person would need to go the credit card office (or it's affiliate's) to fix the problem.

This "main database" would not be totally aggregated, if you have a credit card at Bank One and a Discover card, each would have their own hash total about you - and only that.

Same with healthcare records. Your detailed records and x-rays (or whatever) are on the person device. When the MD wants to see some x-rays (or whatever) that MD gets your personal device.

Yes you could lose or damage your data device. You could give it to someone who steals your identity. That's YOUR problem then. Stupid is as stupid does. What do we do, start being required to protect you from gravity too?

Once your personal data is in some database, you no longer control that data. The owners of the database have UNRESTRICTED access to it, as do bad people (crackers).

If I could I would make these kind of data bases a crime punishable by immediate death of the president of the company, or lead official of the government agency that even tries to creates such a database. No trial just immediate death. (I'll keep track of it all in a database - doh!)

USB devices are fairly rugged already and can hold MB's of data. Let's stop the madness already.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[symbolic]

One of the points is that, children that are abused by their parents, will be able to get better help because police, government, school, all will be able to communicate to improve a child's situation.


No, that's the proposal. There is no indication that this will actually make things better. it's all conjecture at this point. Further, there no backout plan, either, if it doesn't work as proposed. Therein lies the problem- more likely than not, if a new system doesn't produce the results everyone was led to believe they would, they don't get rid of it, they just find other ways to use it. They'll find other ways to use it no matter what happens- whether or not the new system ever met the intended objective becomes largely irrelevant.

This lends a whole new meaning to ....

[0x0000]

"This is going to go into your permanent record, young man..."

That violates our legal traditions in a huge way

[Anonymous Coward]

The operative legal principle should be that our personal information belongs to the individual, and if someone (even someone who works for the government and who "wants to help you") wants to store data about you, they should be required to store that information on YOUR PODS (personally owned data storage)

Centuries of legal precedent have repeatedly stated that information is not property; it cannot be owned by any individual.

Even so called "intellectual property" law doesn't go that far; copyright covers the expression of information, not the information itself, patents cover the manufacture of devices, and trademarks refer only to the tangible marks used, not the ideas that may underlie them.

What you're talking about is taking away yet more freedom of speech, and that's a horrible road to go down. If a citizen is allowed to own knowledge outright, then corporate citizens will soon get those rights, too.

When it's illegal to speak of certain uncomfortable truths because they're literally owned by someone else, our freedoms will have all but completely dissolved.

I don't think we want to head down the road where 2+2=4 is owned by some rich company. You're proposing the first steps towards that, and I think it's a bad idea, proposed for what appear to be good reasons, until you generalize the principle a bit further, and see the underlying ethical flaw.

What it would take for my OK

[iridium_ionizer]

Government organizations sharing data. That's nothing. I really wouldn't care if they did more. They could have my DNA sequence, a GPS/RFD on me or my care, credit reports, websites visited, and friends that I have (via GPS proximity, email and phone records). I wouldn't care.

BUT... for every one of those informational privileges that are granted to the government, there should be a corresponding reasonable action for the common good that they are trying to perform AND there should most definitely be correspondingly STRONG safeguards.

Safeguards such as encrypted or dynamic ID numbers. There is NO reason any government database should have the name or address of a citizen unless there is already extremely strong probability that said citizen is in need of intervention for the common good. Likewise, there should be robust security to prevent hackers, employers, insurance companies, and former significant others from getting access to that type of sensitive data.

Furthermore, any intervention action should be run by a commission, board, or judge for an independent approval. The whole idea in the Patriot Act to avoid getting a warrant to expedite raids for national security reasons is bogus. It bypasses constitutional safeguards, and there isn't a check to stop abuse until after the fact. If national security is so important than we can pay a few judges to be on call 24/7 to issue warrants.

MODDERS, Here is a better one

[WindBourne]

Ok, I have several modders that love to track me and downgrade me(when I have several downgrades in a period of a minute AND the area is not that active, that is one person targeting). Cool. You do not like that I dislike your leader (sadly my president, but certainly not my leader) and his action. Well, here is a post that you can downgrade and actually feel good about calling it a troll.

I am quite sure that you believe that any posting here that knocks GWB is a terrible a front, but look at the supporters of Hitler. Not the admin ppl, but the ppl who voted him in, and then supported many of his policies. Many of these ppl were good salt of the earth Lutherns and Catholics. They were very conservatives. They were looking for a leader who would simply take care of their perceived ills and would make Germany great again. The vast majority of these ppl were not evil. The problem is that they were willing to overlook what bit of evil of their leaders that they could see or hear. Hitler did not expose everything to citizens. The press was controlled. In addition,rallies were started, and even youth groups were created. All in the name of the fatherland defense. Worse, it was directed against a boogie man group (jews, britain, america, etc).

How is that any different than what is happening today? We have seen some of the cracks. AbuGrave is not all that their is. Have you not noticed that the feds are fighting the release of ALL of the photos? They know that the full brunt will bring citizens against them and show them for what they really are? Likewise, we hold ppl in gitmo. Ok, it is just terrorists, right? Well, except for the 3 Americans that we know about who are being denied lawyers, access to others, and all of their rights. Even after a split supreme court said that it was wrong (which explains why the SCs will re-eval this AFTER the two appointments). Ok, we know of the 3. Are there more? You say no. HOW DO YOU KNOW? You don't. You are simply going on your faith.

Likewise, during the time that GWB was gov. it was shown that ppl were being executed who were innocent. So, numerous groups put pressures on a number of states to start using DNA testing on past convicts esp. on death row. Illinois actually stopped ALL death row due to enough evidence that was shown to the gov. Great man. But when GWB was shown it, he simply said that he would give DNA testing to 6 death rows and if any passed, then he would apply DNA testing to those in jail. All 6 had witnesses, solid evidence, etc. IOW, GWB picked 6 crimes that had absolutely no chance. His argument was that the DNA testing was too expensive. And yet, DNA testing is actually cheaper in a month of prison time. So that means if they did 1000 tests, then they need to save 1000 months of jail time to pay for it. Sadly, Illinois alone had several prisoners who were shown to be innocent (and that did not include any of the past executions). That means, that letting these ppl go, it would pay for the costs of all the tests. In showed that GWB's argument was wrong. Here is a gov. who would rather an innocent person be in jail, than the system be shown to have cracks.

That does not include the known lies that he got into concerning the WMD in Iraq. All of this is EVIL and it is no different than Hitler. Yes, Hitler put millions of innocents to death (not just jews either). But the scale does not matter. We were putting innocents to death in Texas, and we are doing more of that today in places like AbuGrave and gitmo. And it includes whoever the admin wants it to. Down the road, it could include somebody that you know, or it could be you.

So, now that I have shown how similiar GWB's actions are to 40's germany we are becoming, Now, you can rightously call this flamebait. Feel better? Assholes.

So Criminal

[Mock]

Until now, schools and police have been unable to communicate with each other about truancy records and criminality, which are often linked.

Wow! I'm glad they have this scientifically proven fact to throw around so casually.

I missed about 1/3 of my classes through highschool, as this was all that was required to maintain a B average.
I maintained this criminal truancy average through college, in one case never even attending a course except to write the exams.
The rest of my time was spent criminally playing video games or criminally cycling (crimes I continue to perpetrate to this day).

I've long since stepped up to a criminal career as a software developer, criminally developing point-of-sale systems for a criminal salary.

Any gains this system could possibly produce will be drowned in the sea of abuse.

No: point by point

[cappadocius]

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Flags have been steadily vanishing in the public square compared to their post-9/11 prominence. They are also largely without power.

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

The US Constitution provides expressly for many human rights. Our legal positivism is not dismissal of the value of human rights, only the acknowledgment that in the real world rights exist because governments grant them, not because of their value.

Identification of Enemies

Name me one world power in history that had no enemies. We don't scapegoat everything on terrorists, only what they do. And we make a distinction between Muslims and Islamists.

Supremacy of the Military

Ours is a civilian government. Military service does not grant significant advantage in elections. Many people do not like the military. Military recruitment has fallen. A large budget means that we are in an intractable war, not that we are a military state.

Rampant Sexism

First, opposition to abortion is not sexism. It really isn't. You can be pro-Life and a feminists. Secondly, opposition to abortion isn't that high. A majority think it should be legal, they just don't think it should be legal at all points and in all circumstances. As for homophobia, it goes both ways. Some states have civil unions, others have marriage bans. Many have some special protections in the form of hate crime laws.

Controlled Mass Media

The closest thing we have to state-run media is PBS and NPR. Tell me with a straight face that those are fascist propaganda machines. And before someone shouts Fox News, having one news source tailored to viewers of a particular political persuasion sympathetic to the current administration does not fascism make.

Religion and Government are Intertwined

American secularism, enshrined in the Constitution, specifically disentangles government and religion. Yes, members of the governing party use religious rhetoric, but they are not the majority of the government, and they represent people who genuinely care about it, not people who have been manipulated.

Labor Power is Suppressed

Unions are perfectly legal, and even given some protections. That unions are in trouble in America is due to the decisions made by the particular Unions (AFL-CIO, several of whose member unions left recently) and the pressures of globalization.

Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

Last I checked Ward Churchill could say any crazy thing that he thought up and nothing happened to University funding. He certainly wasn't hauled away. The US continues to be one of the top nations for scholarly institutions. As for art, refusing to give away money to artists isn't fascism, it is just a lack of socialism.

Obsession with Crime and Punishment

The police don't have limitless power, most people care about civil liberties, and the courts have repeatedly checked the power of law enforcement. I would certainly like for their to be greater checks on law enforcement, but it is not as if we have a secret police or suspension of habeas corpus.

Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

Federal corruption charges are not overly numerous, and the effects of cronyism are limited and temporary. It is not as if we have no problem with this, but again, not to the level of fascism.

Fraudulent Elections

Our elections are real. Sure they are flawed in ways that only rarely make a difference, such as in Bush v Gore, but those flaws are not systematically designed to benefit the ruling party, they are often due to human laziness and incompetence.

Re:No: point by point

[Money for Nothin']

Federal corruption charges are not overly numerous, and the effects of cronyism are limited and temporary. It is not as if we have no problem with this, but again, not to the level of fascism.

Read up on the current Mayor Daley of Chicago sometime. He's as corrupt and cronyist as people get, and the FBI's current probe digs ever-deeper into the rabbit hole, more bugs keep running out away from the drill...

At last count, IIRC, some 20 out of 28 people under Daley had plead guilty to some form of corruption and/or cronyism. The remaining 8 are optimists, I suppose (or well-connected)...

Re:No: point by point

[cappadocius]

Thus why I said Federal corruption rather than local. In fact Chicago was in the back of my mind as the comparison when I said that Federal corruption was relatively infrequent.

Re:No: point by point

[DM9290]

Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

Flags have been steadily vanishing in the public square compared to their post-9/11 prominence. They are also largely without power.

Do other countries refer to their leader as "Leader of the free WORLD"?

Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

The US Constitution provides expressly for many human rights. Our legal positivism is not dismissal of the value of human rights, only the acknowledgment that in the real world rights exist because governments grant them, not because of their value.

umm... watch Nancy Grace on CNN and see her complain about how there are too many civil rights getting in the way of law enforcement and prosecutions.

Identification of Enemies

Name me one world power in history that had no enemies. We don't scapegoat everything on terrorists, only what they do. And we make a distinction between Muslims and Islamists.

right.. but you do have THE AXIS OF EVIL (tm).

(as to the second point... what is the difference between a muslim and an islamist?)

Supremacy of the Military

Ours is a civilian government. Military service does not grant significant advantage in elections. Many people do not like the military. Military recruitment has fallen. A large budget means that we are in an intractable war, not that we are a military state.

So... the Department of Homeland Security doesn't basically run EVERYTHING now?

Rampant Sexism

First, opposition to abortion is not sexism. It really isn't. You can be pro-Life and a feminists. Secondly, opposition to abortion isn't that high. A majority think it should be legal, they just don't think it should be legal at all points and in all circumstances. As for homophobia, it goes both ways. Some states have civil unions, others have marriage bans. Many have some special protections in the form of hate crime laws.

Homophobia goes both ways? You mean between 'homosexuality is an abomination and gays should be shot' to 'homosexuality is an abomination but gays will get their just punishment when they burn in hell'. The president of WHAT country wants to ammend the constitution to BAN gays settling down?

The population of WHAT country never elect a female president?

Controlled Mass Media

The closest thing we have to state-run media is PBS and NPR. Tell me with a straight face that those are fascist propaganda machines. And before someone shouts Fox News, having one news source tailored to viewers of a particular political persuasion sympathetic to the current administration does not fascism make.

Right... and it was only how many days ago that an artical about a new bill requiring preauthorization from the state prior to sale of a video game to kids?

How many millions of dollars in fines where handed out for a wardrobe malfunction?

Religion and Government are Intertwined

American secularism, enshrined in the Constitution, specifically disentangles government and religion. Yes, members of the governing party use religious rhetoric, but they are not the majority of the government, and they represent people who genuinely care about it, not people who have been manipulated.

Secularism may be enshrined in the constitution but the majority of american politicians including the PRESIDENT make routine appeals to God including declaring national days of prayer.

I can't turn on the TV and see an american politician give a speech for more than a few minutes about anything without him referring to God.

Labor Power is Suppressed

Unions are perfectly legal, and even given some protections. That unions are in trouble in America is due to the decisions made by the particular Unions (AFL-CIO, several of whose member unions left recently) and the pressures of globalization.



some protections? don't make it sound so grand. What about minimum wages? How about limits on the length of the wor

Re:No: point by point

[x_codingmonkey_x]

Wow, nice to see someone stand up for the USA. It gets kind of irritating to constantly see US bashing here on Slashdot (with rarely any backing to their bogus criticism). Thanks.

Disclaimer: I am Canadian but have a lot of respect for the US.

Re:No: point by point

[CommieOverlord]

And before someone shouts Fox News, having one news source tailored to viewers of a particular political persuasion sympathetic to the current administration does not fascism make.

There is no overt and explicit censorship of the media in the Western media. However, the "free" media tends to support the "party line" of the government in very much the same fashion as government owned/censored media in authoritarian states.

The means may be different, but the ends are the same.

Re:No: point by point

[Money for Nothin']

Eh, I'd argue that we don't hear about it so often because nobody really investigates the federal govn't... Unlike the states, which are investigated by the feds, nobody investigates the feds because nobody has the authority to do so. Some projects and even entire agencies have little, if any Congressional oversight.

Re:No: point by point

[cappadocius]

Do other countries refer to their leader as "Leader of the free WORLD"?

No, but other nations fallaciously heap similar praise on themselves. A fairly meaningless title does not equal fascist-level nationalism, especially as it is based on an ideology of freedom, not upon ethnicity.

umm... watch Nancy Grace on CNN and see her complain about how there are too many civil rights getting in the way of law enforcement and prosecutions.

And watch her continue to complain because she will ultimately be thwarted by the courts.

but you do have THE AXIS OF EVIL (tm).

Bush said that in a State of the Union speech. It was dumb, so he stopped saying it. Blaming all your economic problems on the Jews == scapegoating. Bad speech writer != scapegoating.

what is the difference between a muslim and an islamist?

Simplified slightly: A Muslim is a follower of the religion of Islam. An Islamist is a follower of an extreme ideology which teaches that Islam is the only acceptable form of government.

So... the Department of Homeland Security doesn't basically run EVERYTHING now?

Um. No. Should it? Clumping a bunch of unrelated civilian bureaucracies together in terms of the cabinet structure is a stupid idea, but it isn't big brother.

Homophobia goes both ways? You mean between 'homosexuality is an abomination and gays should be shot' to 'homosexuality is an abomination but gays will get their just punishment when they burn in hell'. The president of WHAT country wants to ammend the constitution to BAN gays settling down?

That is a clear distortion of the debate. Many politicians in BOTH parties are pro-Gay Rights. And assuming he actually cares, the president wants to amend the constitution to prevent the label of "marriage" from being bestowed on gays. Close-minded, yes. But they can still settle down, live together, and raise kids if they do it through private contracts.

The population of WHAT country never elect a female president?

That is regrettable, but not damning. It is naive, however, to think that continuing sex discrimination could be the only cause of inequalities between equally qualified groups. The country has had only a generation to replace its outmoded social structures to provide for greater equality.

How many millions of dollars in fines where handed out for a wardrobe malfunction?

Again. Stupidity != fascism. Wanting to prevent kids from viewing certain material without parental consent is not the same as controlling the media. In a fascist nation the government censors political speech, not nip slips.

I can't turn on the TV and see an american politician give a speech for more than a few minutes about anything without him referring to God.

People are allowed to say whatever they want in their speeches. As the saying goes, "it's a free country."

some protections?

As in sometimes they can't be fired for walking off the job even when someone else wants the job. I call that a pretty good protection. Unless of course you are unemployed, and there is a greedy union, then it is a pretty sucky protection.

What about minimum wages?

Check.

How about limits on the length of the workweek?

Check.

How about laws preventing companies from dictating employee conduct while they are NOT at work.

Depending on the locality: check.

America is light years behind other western nations on protection of labour.

And the only benefit we get from it is the increased ability for workers to get hired and make decent wages. Sucky trade-off, huh?

Schools in the united states are STILL arguing about whether or not to teach creationism in SCIENCE class.

No. Teaching creationism was banned in public schools by the Supreme Court, and some public universities refuse to admit students who have been taught creationism or intelligent design in the

Re:No: point by point

[Phrack]

  Supremacy of the Military

Ours is a civilian government. Military service does not grant significant advantage in elections. Many people do not like the military. Military recruitment has fallen. A large budget means that we are in an intractable war, not that we are a military state.

And even more so, the heavy reliance upon technology as a force multiplier as opposed to a million man army. That, and purchasing incompetence.

  Fraudulent Elections

Our elections are real. Sure they are flawed in ways that only rarely make a difference, such as in Bush v Gore, but those flaws are not systematically designed to benefit the ruling party, they are often due to human laziness and incompetence.

And they happen regularly, with the names on the ballot changing on a regular basis.

America isn't perfect. Far from it. But it is also not Fascist. Fascism is far more organized than the US Gov. Which is fine... federal government entangled in their own red tape and petty squabbles stays out of my hair.

Re:No: point by point

[cobras2]

Oh, that's why I hear so many people always agreeing with the government in the US.. and so few ever speaking out against it... HA! Sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face. I'm Canadian and I hear more about americans protesting american decisions than I do about Canadians protesting Canadian decisions. And ours often suck even more than the american ones do. Like, we have this stupid gay marriage thing going on right now, for instance, and as soon as I say I have a problem with homosexuals someone is going to flame me for being a hate mongerer. I'm not a hate mongerer, and if someone decided to make theft legal in Canada I'd be mad about that too. Does that mean I think thieves should burn in hell? Actually yes.. I'm a christian so I believe we all (myself included) *SHOULD* burn in hell, because we deserve it (yes, myself included - everybody, "For *all* have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.") Happily for us, there's an alternative, which is to let somebody else take the blame - He volunteered - and have Him take the punishment - which He did - so that we don't have to. It's a free offer, and anybody can accept it. There was a guy named Saul who was actually persecuting christians, up until God invited him to join the church. Being homosexual seems to me to be less directly offensive than actually persecuting christians. Umm so in conclusion.. I'm not sorry for preaching (It's my job, one that I'm happy to do, since I'm a christian - not catholic, btw) but I am sorry if I was rambling a bit :)

Re:No: point by point

[Shaper_pmp]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

One word - FEMA.

The only reason you now know FEMA is corrupt to the point of uselessness is because they were suddenly called-on to do a large, high-profile job and were thrust into the spotlight, where they failed miserably and let additional hundreds or thousands of people unnecessarily die. As a result the (politically-appointed, by Bush) head of FEMA has resigned, and Bush has been forced into a publical apology (immense comfort for the bereaved whose relatives died so Bush could give his mates a sinecure, I'm sure).

No-one watches the Federal watchmen, so graft and corruption go unmonitored and unchecked.

How can you possibly make definitive statements when the best you can prove is "some are known to be corrupt, and the others we just don't know?".

Re:No: point by point

[Shaper_pmp]

So your point is... what?

You disapprove of gay marriage (which a lot of people see as a Right), and think America's better because their reactionary and homophobic president are seeking to ban it?

You admit you're a Christian (and sounding more and more like a fundamentalist, the further down the post you get), but you seem extremely short on the compassion and tolerance part. Not to derail the debate, but marriage means two things - it can be a secular state-approved union, or a religious union.

Has any law been passed in Canada that forces priests to marry gay couples? No? Then what right do you have (other than an interfering, homophobic, predjudiced one) to deny them the right to a civil ceremony?

In short, your post seems to boil down to:

"I think the USA is better than Canada because it's more homophobic and less liberal. I'm not homophobic, but I don't think gay couples should be granted any protection or recognition in law. I appear to be edging towards fundamentalism. Jesus is good! Worship Jesus! Being gay isn't as bad as killing christians."

Are you stoned, or drunk or what? That was competely incoherent, and did nothing but make you look like a fundamentalist gay-basher. Seriously, dude - you're your own worst enemy.

Re:No: point by point

[Shaper_pmp]

Ours is a civilian government. Military service does not grant significant advantage in elections. Many people do not like the military. Military recruitment has fallen. A large budget means that we are in an intractable war, not that we are a military state.

How many more times do people want to beat this straw man?

Read the freaking article.

Hitler's Germany had a civilian government.

This point is actually about seeking and flaunting military power, and don't try to tell me the US hasn't been on an international cock-waving military rampage since 9/11. Don't try to tell me Bush doesn't unnecessarily hold press conferences on aircraft carriers, and stage a "celebrity" arrival in a military jet. Don't tell me the current administration doesn't have an overwhelming preference for military force over diplomacy or economic sanctions, and don't tell me they don't try to identify themselves with the army at every opportunity, so any attack on them is turned into "hating our boys".

You're trying to imply that leaders != country, but in an (allegedly) democratic nation you don't have that right. You (supposedly) elected them, and they determine what the country does. They glorify the military and espouse fascist policies, "the country" tends towards fascism.

You think Hitler's nazi administration had a 100% approval rating? No, but the people were powerless to do anything about it. You (supposedly) have a choice. You can't hide behind your leaders - either you're part of an undemocratic despotic fascist regime, or you're part of a democratic regime and accept responsibility for their fascist direction.

"Our elections are real. Sure they are flawed in ways that only rarely make a difference, such as in Bush v Gore, but those flaws are not systematically designed to benefit the ruling party, they are often due to human laziness and incompetence."

Sorry? Where did it say your system had to be designed to be corrupt? All it says is that your elections have to be corrupted by one party.

Some news for you: your elections were corrupt, and overwhelmingly so in favour of the Republican party, who then went on to win. People who were voting for the opposition were erroneously disenfranchised by a company with strong ties to the winning party. The most corrupt state was run by the winning candidate's brother, an erroneous result was announced by the news corporation owned by a close friend of (and financial backer of) the future-president, the re-count was stopped moments before the opposition count levelled with the "winner" by a supreme court dominated by judges on the winning candidate's side, and appointed by the winning candidate's father.

Even with all these things in his favour, the winning candidate won by one of the smallest margins is US political history.

Exactly how many "co-incidences" do we have to have before your BS alarm goes off?

"America isn't perfect. Far from it. But it is also not Fascist. Fascism is far more organized than the US Gov. Which is fine... federal government entangled in their own red tape and petty squabbles stays out of my hair."

Not yet, maybe. But it's already well on the way. I haven't seen a single good argument (that stands up to scrutiny), refuting a single point on the list, since I posted the original link.

That ought to tell you something.

Re:No: point by point

[Shaper_pmp]

"Flags have been steadily vanishing in the public square compared to their post-9/11 prominence. They are also largely without power."

Flags != Nationalism

Nationalism == Irrationally claiming your country is better than any other, and refusing to countenance arguments or facts that indicate otherwise.

And you're doing that very well, thanks.

"The US Constitution provides expressly for many human rights. Our legal positivism is not dismissal of the value of human rights, only the acknowledgment that in the real world rights exist because governments grant them, not because of their value."

Indeed, your Founding Fathers had a great deal of respect for human rights... while routinely owning slaves?

Don't make me laugh. "Commitment to Human Rights" means accepting that all people have certain inalienable rights, not just the ones you play golf with or live near.

Stop waving a 200-year-old bit of paper at me and we'll talk again when I can't end the argument with the word "Guantanamo", "Abu Ghraib", or any of the other (numerous, less-publicised) internment camps where inmates are held without trial or even formal charges, and are humiliated and tortured (sorry, stressed) for years.

"We don't scapegoat everything on terrorists, only what they do."

Right, so Iraq was aiding terrorists, right?

Proven to be complete bullshit, admitted by many Republicans, and proven that Bush new it before they even went in.

And that's leaving aside the unprecendented crackdown on civil liberties, blamed on the terrorists, that many analysts have shown don't even plug the holes they used to commit their crimes.

"Ours is a civilian government."

Irrelevant. So was Hitlers. For a complete rebuttal of your mis-reading of the paragraph concerned, see my response to Phrack, who appears to have cut-and-pasted your response on this point. If you both aren't going to read the article properly, can you at least try to be original in your selection of straw-men?

Short version: The Bush administration both demonstrably seeks and glorifies military power. You (supposedly) elected them fairly. Therefore you bear the responsibility for their attitudes and policies. Saying "we're not them" is not an option in a representative democracy, at least when you're arguing for their side.

"First, opposition to abortion is not sexism. It really isn't."

Nope, it isn't. But if you read the article you'll see that

1) It's edited for a magazine format, and so the wording has likely been changed from the original, and
2) Those headlines (which are all the right-wing respondants seem to have read) are "general catch-all" categories, not a complete summary of the details within them.

"Secondly, opposition to abortion isn't that high. A majority think it should be legal, they just don't think it should be legal at all points and in all circumstances."

It isn't. You have a dividing line (before the 3rd trimester, IIRC). Why is it even still an issue?

And if it's only a tiny religious minority pushing for (and sometimes, nearly achieving) a re-evaluation of the law, doesn't that play back into the "Religion and Government are Intertwined" point?

"As for homophobia, it goes both ways. Some states have civil unions, others have marriage bans. Many have some special protections in the form of hate crime laws."

And your president is pushing for a federal ban on it. I don't care what some small sections of the population are doing, if your entire power-apparatus is doing something else.

Was the USSR not communist because there were still free-thinkers in the population? No. Is America automatically not fascist or totalitarian because some small sections of it disagree with the powerful ruling elite? No.

"The closest thing we have

Re:No: point by point

[cappadocius]

Irrationally claiming your country is better than any other, and refusing to countenance arguments or facts that indicate otherwise. And you're doing that very well, thanks.

So me arguing that my nation has problems but is not fascist based on facts counts as a demonstration of nationalism to the point of fascism?

Founding Fathers ... slaves ... all people .. 200-year-old bit of paper

The constitution is not perfect, nor were the founding fathers. The fact remains that the constitution does recognize numerous rights, regardless of race, and those rights are enforced by the courts. Human rights abuses occurr, but the mark of a free society is not that bad things never happen, it is that they become known and the government is held accountable to the people. Courts have handed down many rulings against the administration's practices at Gitmo. Justice has been slow, but will not go lacking.

f you both aren't going to read the article properly

I am responding to the link given. I make no claims to respond to the article no one here was directed to.

And your president is pushing for a federal ban on it. I don't care what some small sections of the population are doing, if your entire power-apparatus is doing something else.

It isn't a small section, and the entire power apparatus isn't doing the same thing. This is incredibly common knowledge. Pick up a damn newspaper. Maybe you'll learn something.

Why else is Creationism/ID taught in some Science classes

Those are not currently part of any public school curriculum.

Why is "faith-based" decision-making considered acceptable

Because we don't biggottedly reject anyone who is religion.

You'll note, however, that I believe you still don't have something as basic as a minimum wage law

I will note that you believe that. $5.15/hour nationally, by the way. Much higher in certain states. Clearly you have your agenda, so there is no dissuading you.

Re:No: point by point

[cobras2]

>So your point is... what?

Actually you're right.. after reading it again I think I should have been a little more obvious about what I was trying to say.

>but you seem extremely short on the compassion and tolerance part.

Really? I think you need to read the post again.

>Then what right do you have (other than an interfering, homophobic, predjudiced one) to deny them the right to a civil ceremony?

I don't. It's not about me. It's about what God already said; he said no gay marriages (or gay unions for that matter). Don't ask me.. ask Him.

>"I think the USA is better than Canada because it's more homophobic and less liberal."

More like less bad. But I meant in the sense of their laws; I don't agree with the whole loudly pointing out that gays ought to burn in hell thing. Because that is what you said was one of my problems; the lack of compassion.
Yes, I do believe that gays deserve to burn in hell. I also believe that every other person who was ever born deserves the same thing. But that's not where it stops; which I already said.
It's not like "yeah, we all deserve to die, the end." which is how such demonstrations make it sound. They make it sound like, if you're gay, it's already too late; there's no hope or chance of anything better. But there's always a second chance as long as you're alive.

>"I'm not homophobic, but I don't think gay couples should be granted any protection or recognition in law."

No, it should be illegal to be gay, just like it's illegal to steal or murder or whatever else.
Why? Because God said so, period. If you don't believe in God, or don't believe that he said so, then I understand your position (not caring if it's legal); but you ought to be able to understand my point of view if you realize that I *do* believe in God and I *do* believe that he said it's wrong to be gay. So, if I believe it's okay as long as the government says it is, then what am I?
Yeah, that's right, a hypocrite.

>"I appear to be edging towards fundamentalism."

I think the right place to be is somewhere in between a fundamentalist and tolerationist.
I believe there are absolutes. I believe there are fundamental truths, and until you can show that something I though was a fundamental truth isn't, I'll stick to it. I believe in God, I believe the Bible is his word, and the Bible says no gays.

So, if you can convince me there is no God, or that the Bible is not his word, or that it doesn't actually say "no gays", I'm ready to accept gays. Until then I consider it to be sinful and something which should be illegal.

If I was the President of the US/Prime Minister of Canada, I would be doing everything in my power to make it illegal.

In fact I am doing everything in my power to make it so, but unfortunately my power is limited to signing petitions, and those don't seem to be helping much here in Canada (wanna guess why they refuse to have a referendum on the question of gay marriage in Canada? Because they're afraid the vote would be "no".)

>That was competely incoherent, and did nothing but make you look like a fundamentalist gay-basher.

Oh I dunno, I thought the first sentence or so was pretty coherent... :)
Seriously though, I should have read that over again before posting it because, even besides the fact that it's rather poorly formatted, that didn't exactly come out the way I wanted it to.
So, again, sorry for rambling.
I hope this post makes more sense.

Re:No: point by point

[Shaper_pmp]

"Really? I think you need to read the post again."

I'm not saying you appeared incapable of compassion, but that Christians are supposed to have compassion for all people ("love the sinner, hate the sin"?), and saying "I think gays deserve to burn in hell" shows no compassion for them at all.

"I don't. It's not about me. It's about what God already said; he said no gay marriages (or gay unions for that matter). Don't ask me.. ask Him."

As I said, "marriage" can mean one of two things - either a religious or a purely legal ceremony. I understand the objection to a religious ceremony - in fact, I actually have a measure of respect for priests who refuse to conduct a religious gay marriage (at least they're sticking to their beliefs, and not selectively abandoning them because it's trendy) - I just don't agree with their anti-gay position.

That said, would you have a problem with a legal contract (call it "getting blarkled" to avoid emotive terms) between two gay people, providing legal recognition that they formed a partnership and planned to stay together for the rest of their lives?

Basically, is it the word "marriage" you object to, or what you percieve as the government tacitly approving of homosexuality? And if gay marriage is the government approving of it, what's the difference between "approving of" and merely "recognising"?

"They make it sound like, if you're gay, it's already too late; there's no hope or chance of anything better. But there's always a second chance as long as you're alive."

This is interesting, because it cuts right to the heart of the debate - is homosexuality a choice, or is it innate? While it's clearly not 100% genetic (not all identical twins share the same sexuality) there's some evidence it's actually heavily influenced by genetics (since twins generally do share a sexuality).

If it's determined (or even, overwhelmingly influenced) by genes, what does this mean in the context of a loving god? Is he additionally-damning gays and lesbians before they're even born? In addition, homosexuality (if it's going to happen) is usually already well-developed by puberty - even if the child could "learn" to not be gay, by the time they're even aware of their sexuality it's already too late for them.

I don't mean to be offensive, but if God is choosing to damn people for something that's completely beyond their control (or at least, requiring them live an asexual life, constantly in denial), that's exactly the kind of mentality that glues coins to a joke-shop floor just to fuck with people. Again, how to reconcile this with a loving, caring god?

Lest you suspect otherwise, I should probably point out I'm straight. However, I do have a couple of very good gay friends, and (proof-reading various sociology/psychology papers for student friends) I've read up a lot on the "science" of homosexuality. I've also always wanted to debate someone who was anti-gay, to see how they arrive at such contrary beliefs to my own, especially in the face of the evidence (genetic, sociological, psychological) we're uncovering...

Re:No: point by point

[Shaper_pmp]

"So me arguing that my nation has problems but is not fascist based on facts counts as a demonstration of nationalism to the point of fascism?"

I'm not saying for one second that you personally are a fascist. However, there's no denying America is one of the most nationalist countries on earth - it's obvious even when you compare something (as you offered) as simple as the prevalence of national flags about the place.

In Britain, France or Germany you can go for weeks without seeing the national flag anywhere, and anyone who stuck a flag bumper-sticker on their car, hung a flag on their wall as a kid, or used a varient of the flag's design in the logo or lettering of their political campaign would be considered a bit odd. Patriotism isn't dead, it's just that we don't feel the need to beat people over the head with it. "Nationalism" isn't very often promoted as a good thing, because it isn't - it's an assumption that you're the best country in the world, and that leads to arrogance and cultural isolationism, and those things lead to situations like the USA's current one, or to (extreme case) Nazi germany's expansionist drive to subjugate the "lesser races" that caused WWII.

While many citizens do believe they live in the country they'd like the most, they don't consider "my favourite" to be synonymous with "objective best" - indeed, many people would view that confusion as childish and unempathic. Especially when you're world-famous for not knowing what it's like in other countries.

"The constitution is not perfect, nor were the founding fathers. The fact remains that the constitution does recognize numerous rights, regardless of race, and those rights are enforced by the courts."

Indeed. I didn't intend to indicate that the Founding Fathers didn't give a crap for anyone, more that even they fell a long way short of a commitment to universal human rights.

"Human rights abuses occurr... they become known and the government is held accountable to the people. Courts have handed down many rulings against the administration's practices at Gitmo. Justice has been slow, but will not go lacking."

And if the human rights abuses are perpetrated by your own government? And despite court rulings the overwhelming majority of the prisoners are still illegally detained and tortured? And the population chooses to vote the ones responsible for the abuses back into government?

At what point does it become fair to say "the country lacks a commitment to human rights"?

Nobody these days in the civilised world can get away with standing up and saying "I think Human Rights are bollocks". The best they can get away with is to merely ignore them - to state your public opposition to somethign so fundamental would be to invite international castigation.

As another example, would you say China has a human rights problem? (Most would say yes).

And yet China is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just because they mouthe the words, does that mean they still really believe in them?

"if you both aren't going to read the article properly"

"I am responding to the link given. I make no claims to respond to the article no one here was directed to. "

My apologies - I meant the page I had linked-to. An awful lot of people in this thread don't seem to have read the article properly, or only seem to have skimmed the headlines, and are erecting straw-men arguments. Simply reading the details under the headlines is generally enough to disprove their argument, and it gets frustrating having to type out the same damn rebuttals to several people, which would be unnecessary if they'd just read the article properly.

That said, are we conceding the point that the USA does invest a great deal of time, pride and energy in ensuring it has a superior military? And that the neocons have been kno

Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR info

[shanen]

Great, if that's the way you feel, tell me your social security number, credit card numbers, and the details about your last sexual encounter and I'll use my freedom of speech to broadcast that information all over the world. Oh yes, you have to throw in your name, you stupid and anonymous troll.

There are different kinds of information.

Now I'll reveal the only reason I replied: To make the request that you designate me as your "foe" and we can mutually ignore each other forever and ever.

I have rather better uses for my time than pretending to have serious discussions with nameless fools.

You though privacyin EU was better than US huh ?

[nomad63]

Time to think again :)
I can not imagine any bigger brother than this alleged scheme. They might as well starting IDin the childres as they born with RFID chips so they never lose track of them neither.

Is it me or are the Dutch marching towards the most Orwellian society in the world ? Gawd... Regardless who has access to this data, this is bad. One person accessing this database is one person too many.

Important tool

[Anonymous Coward]

Information is an important tool for oppression. In China since the communists came, all citizens have dossiers detailing everything they have done. If you are unable to account for you time you are considered reactionary, and sent to camp (last documented time that happened was 98). And yes, of course our governments wouldnt do that. But thats part of the thing, our laws and governments are constructed to make it difficult to oppress people.

That is why americans have a constitution, and why the rest of us have similar stuff. Special important laws that are difficult to change in one period of power. But things change with time. everywhere.

Take Italy for example, a democracy since the fascists were thrown out. But now the president owns the media, all of it. Is that democracy? Not if you ask anyone familiar with the construction of states etc.

In the US in the 50s we had the communist/homo scare. Do you think it would have been better if there were dossiers on everyone? Then we had the Hoover/FBI problem, you do know what Hoover used his info for? Why noone could fire him?

Name one government where those in power have never abused their power in a really horrible way. Do you think they are all saints with wellmeaning intentions? Why does your american president pardon criminals just before quitting their jobs?

No government is immune to abuse. That is just plain stupid.

OT: Biometric birth certificates

[davidwr]

This is a wee bit off topic, but because they are used to obtain passports and other identity documents, birth certificates should contain some kind of biometric data.

A thumbprint or footprint should be enough in almost all cases, but they fail for identical twins and people born without fingers and feet. They also fail after-the-fact for people who lose those appendages.

Results of a DNA sample would do the trick for all but identical twins.

When you submit your birth certificate to the passport agency, submit a fresh copy of the same biometric information.

People who use traditional birth certificates to obtain identity documents and who could not otherwise prove their identity with 100% certainty would have their passport files noted that proof of identity was less than 100% certain. For most applications this is not a problem - 99.9+% certainty is all we have today as it is. For those few that need 100% certainty but do not have biometric data taken at birth, third-party background checks and DNA comparisons with family members will fill in the remaining 0.00...01%.

Of course, this will be a problem for anyone in the Federal Witness Protection Program.

the rest of the story...

[professorhojo]

They're just copying their neighbours, where it seems to be going well ... the Danish have been doing this for a couple of decades already - collecting a full record of all children based on their assignment of a number to the person at birth - as a result, epidemiologists find the Danish incredibly useful for large scale demographic data sweeps ... I think it's a great idea, so long as there's rigorous statutory limitations on how the data may be used and accessed.

i do

[professorhojo]

the Danish have been doing this successfully for a couple of decades already - collecting a full record of all children based on their assignment of a number to the person at birth - as a result, epidemiologists find the Danish incredibly useful for large scale demographic data sweeps ... I think it's a great idea, so long as there's rigorous statutory limitations on how the data may be used and accessed.

Re:i do

[birge]

epidemiologists find the Danish incredibly useful for large scale demographic data sweeps

Are you suggesting that scientific studies are justification for this kind of thing? That people's right to privacy is subject to suspension if a social scientist think some good data can come of it?

it's a great idea, so long as there's rigorous statutory limitations on how the data may be used and accessed

Maybe Europeans are far enough evolved for their governments to never abuse their power. But it's pretty clear we Americans don't have such considerate politicians, and even if we did I'm not willing to take the risk just so we can produce some nice statistics.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Dutch

[dragin33]

Pennsylvania Dutch?

Please don't call it the "Patriot" act

[some guy I know]

It's not the "Patriot" act; it's the "USAPATRIOT" Act.
Please use the full acronym, or its full name: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".
The "USAPATRIOT" Act has nothing to do with patriotism, so calling it the "Patriot Act" is misleading.
(Considering how the Act is being misused these days, even using its full name is somewhat misleading (How is copyright infringement "terrorism"?).)
Personally, I pronounce it "the you sap at riot act" to avoid confusion.
Other pronunciations are "the US ap uh TRY ot act" and (as Jar-Jar) "the YOUsa pah TR-R-RE-E-E at act".

Australia - HIC - ACIR

[Anonymous Coward]

Australia
Health Insurance Commission (soon to be Medicare Australia)
ACIR - Australian Childhood Immunisation Register

Many times this innocent regester has been abounded with requests to 'do more' than hold immunisation information.

However, the charter of HIC doesn't allow it.

This is one of the reasons they are changing it to 'Medicare Australia, with terms like this:

From: 'Human Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 No. , 2005 23' (That's Page 23)

"PART II - Establishment of Medicare Australia

4A Function of Medicare Australia
The function of Medicare Australia is to assist the Chief Executive Officer in the performance of the Chief Executive Officer's functions." ....

Err. Right.
So what does that mean? Well. It could mean just about anything. If the CEO was told 'fire %15 of staff and then outsource all functions' then we would have to help her do it.

Re:This is not about terrorism

[pahles]

I did RTFA. It says nothing about children of 12 years and up. It talks about child protection services calling in parents for meetings based on police records (criminality), school records (truancy), doctors records (possible abuse/beatings?). Do you think children under twelve don't skip class? Do you think they don't rob the grovery store around the corner? I'm not saying it is not helping keeping the adolescents on a straight path, but it is not about muslim youth only as you suggested. And certainly not about terrorism as stated in the subject...

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, if that's the way you feel, tell me your social security number, credit card numbers, and the details about your last sexual encounter and I'll use my freedom of speech to broadcast that information all over the world.

If I tell you that information, you are free to broadcast that information all over the world. It's called free speech. It's up to me to decide whether I want to tell you that information in the first place, though. That's also free speech.

Oh yes, you have to throw in your name, you stupid and anonymous troll.

First of all, ad hominem attack has no place in rational argument. Secondly, if I invented a pseudonym, like 90% of slashdot, would my arguments magically become any more (or less) valid? Truth stands on it's own merits.

There are different kinds of information.

So, now you're advocating a nation state that gets determine which 'kinds' of knowledge to which freedom of speech applies? That's an even more dangerous precedent than the one you advocated before.

Now I'll reveal the only reason I replied: To make the request that you designate me as your "foe" and we can mutually ignore each other forever and ever.

I see: I make an argument grounded in centuries of legal precedent, write politely and argue in good faith, and you brand me a foe, a troll, and a fool? And then you try to arrange for me "ignore" your posts, so that I'll self-censor any futher critiques of the flaws in your arguments? I don't find that acceptable.

I'm not going to stop pointing out the flaws in the arguments that I see in anyone's posts. You have the right to make ridiculous claims if you want; but I have the equal right to rebutt them. That's how free speech works.

I have rather better uses for my time than pretending to have serious discussions with nameless fools.

Wow. Three insults in a single paragraph, and *I*'m the purported troll? Perhaps you should look up what that term means, and where it came from. Rational debate requires that you address the argument, not just attack the speaker, which should be easier, not harder, if the speaker is anonymous. Somehow, you've managed to regress towards an ad-hominem attack. Bravo, that's no mean feat!

Relax, take a deep breath, and realize that when you speak in a public forum, people have the right to respond with arguments that don't always agree with yours. That doesn't make them "fools", "stupid", nor "trolls"; it means they disagree with you. Rational debate is a skill you should have learned in public school; perhaps you should revisit it if you plan to continue to post your views in an international forum.

Good Luck!
--
AC

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[shanen]

You are still without clue or name. The point of the entire discussion is that anonymity is being stripped from people, and you apparently expect me to discuss it with you while you can still play anonymous games?

Just another abuse of anonymity. If you have something to say that's worth saying, put your name on it. Otherwise, STFU. Please notice that I'm not going to waste any time discussing substantive topics with anonymous trolls. I sincerely hope you spent a lot of time writing that post, since I barely glanced at it, thereby wasting any time you invested.

Have I already requested that you designate me as foe? You've convinced me you're quite worth ignoring, and the foe designation might help. Sadly, it probably doesn't apply to anonymous cowards. I have yet to see a single example of a legitimate use of the /. AC misfeature.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[Anonymous Coward]

First, you said:
The operative legal principle should be that our personal information belongs to the individual

But now you say:
If you have something to say that's worth saying, put your name on it. Otherwise, STFU.

You've been very insulting to me, though I've reminded you repeatedly that ad hominem attack is bad debating style. And now you've just contradicted yourself. I have to wonder: were you trying to be antagonistic all along, or were you trying to present an honest point before you got caught up in your frenzy of condemnation?

My position remains consistant: basic freedom of speech includes the right to say what you know, and also to choose silence if you so choose. You, on the other hand, are trying to demand information from me, and at the same time, restrict it from others.

Pick one.
--
AC

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[shanen]

Thank you for designating me as your foe, nghtchld. For the rest of it, I'm uninterested in wasting time with you.

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for designating me as your foe, nghtchld.

I'm not familiar with the word "nghtchld". Is it some obscure form of insult? I'm just curious.

For the rest of it, I'm uninterested in wasting time with you.

Ah. I see I've indeed been trolled, then. It's been a while since I've seen such a literate troll; I was still holding out hope that you were just a hotheaded youth, but alas, I fear you were trolling all along.

Well done. It's been about ten years since I last saw a Usenet style troll done this well; I guess I commend you for the nostalgia.

It's a shame you weren't really interested in honest debate; if you're as young as you seem, you may yet grow up into an intelligent and rational adult. Until then, happy trolling, kid!
--
AC

Re:Principle is *backwards*--WE should own OUR inf

[shanen]

Have you considered the virtues of telling the truth once in a while? Yes, I know that's a silly thing to say to a minor league anonymous troll.

(If you're not a simple and feeble-minded troll, then you are completely lacking in creative imagination, which is probably worse.)

Actually, I have run across some major league flamers in my day, but that was far more than 10 years ago. (Well, except for Godwin, who only abandoned the newsgroups in '95.) Though I've seen some feeble attempts hereabouts, I've never actually noticed a big leaguer on /., which is another testament to your naive rudeness.

The only signficance of this branch is to demonstrate yet again why AC is a /. misfeature. I really doubt anyone would post such tripe as the ACs "contribute" if there were any trace of accountability for their resource wastage. The sysops really should increase the strength of the filtering to completely block AC and foes, at least as an option. It's obviously a total waste to be reminded of your existance--but I predict you will do it again, anyway.

third world nations: here we come!!!

[LifeLyne]

thank the mother of all ctrl-alt-del that I had my kid in a 3rd world country, that is now sort of 'up in smoke', have four valid passports and haven't been on radar in 15 years. As Robert A. Heinlein said alooong time ago: when it gets to this level its time to relocate to another planet. 3rd world will do in a pinch

Yet More Enlightenment

[virg_mattes]

> The database is not the important factor there. You are basically saying, "if the government was less efficient, then he wouldn't have been able to kill as many Jews". I agree. And I agree that the "database" made the government more efficient.

However efficiency in itself is not a bad thing and not a thing to be avoided. Your argument, like I said, rests on the premise that governments should be inefficient all the time for the exceptional situation when the worst case scenario comes into play.

Not at all. The crux of my argument as regards the Dutch records and Hitler's abuse of them has to do with the intrinsic weakness of the concept of information centralization. The problem was that there were records in the Dutch government that listed each person's religion, and I can see no realistic reason why that information needed to be there. Total demographics about religion can be gathered without tying a perticular person to a particular religion, and what possible benefit could having your religion listed in a census database serve you? This is a real problem, in that such repositories end up collecting information that doesn't provide any real benefit to the person recorded, but is there to be abused. Coupled with the fact that very few of these data collectors see any problem with assembling such information with or without the consent of those profiled, and with the fact that these same collectors do their best never to discard information from their system, you end up with a system that captures a whole lot of stuff that represents nothing but a liability to the person in question. This is in fact what happened in the Netherlands, where they collected and stored information about their population's religion to no plausible benefit, and that information was later abused to their detriment.

Again, I don't care if the government is efficient. What concerns me is that these databases don't provide benefit to nearly as many people as they impose detriment, and so care must be exercised in what information ends up where, and why. Therefore, streamlining their connectivity to allow more efficient data exchange isn't necessarily a good thing.

Virg