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."
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.
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The Netherlands also holds the record in the highest telephone tap rate of most western countries.
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?
My Linux - (L)ove (I)s (N)ever (U)tterly eXPensive
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.
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).
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
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.
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'.
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.
Harald
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...
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
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.
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.
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.
. html
http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/1126760833908
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.
I bet every government does this -- to some extent. This is the one being honest about it.
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use roads because a bus company complained about your driving 3 times. --skunkpussy
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.
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!)
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.
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.
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
"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?
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
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.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
"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
Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
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.