Slashdot Mirror
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."
It's dangerous storing all information about people in one, most likely easilly hackable location.
"...if people respected copyright more, like you guys do with the GPL so religiously, [the DMCA] wouldn't be necessary."
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.
If what you are reading sounds funny, or sarcastic, lame, or stupid
it is because it is supposed to be. just laugh
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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
If these records are as exhaustive as they seem to be, what are the risks of blackmail?
High, IMO.
2)Find marketing company
3)PROFIT!!
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...
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
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).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
...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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
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.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
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.
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.
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.
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?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
While I suspect that this has good intentions
I think you can put that suspicion to rest.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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'.)
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?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
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?
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
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.
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.
>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.
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:Well, how about a system that allows them to share data on demand? Such systems exist in the US, and seem reasonable.
Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
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?
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.
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
Artists against online scams http://www.aa419.org/
I believe this is well intended.
There's a road that goes someplace really bad that's paved with these things.
-- $G
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
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
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.
www.mikesmind.com - www.daddyworkathome.com - www.freetofarm.org - www.tenfoottable.com
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?
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.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
"children die because social services are hugely incompetent."
This should read "because PARENTS are hugely incompetent"
You're welcome.
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
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.
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.
Words to men, as air to birds.
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.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis