OneDOJ to Offer National Criminal Database to Law Enforcement

Degrees writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Justice Department is building a massive database, known as 'OneDOJ'. The system allows state and local police officers around the country to search millions of case files from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies. The system already holds approximately 1 million case records and is projected to triple in size over the next three years. The files include investigative reports, criminal-history information, details of offenses, and the names, addresses and other information of criminal suspects or targets. From the article: 'Civil-liberties and privacy advocates say the scale and contents of such a database raise immediate privacy and civil rights concerns, in part because tens of thousands of local police officers could gain access to personal details about people who have not been arrested or charged with crimes. The little-noticed program has been coming together over the past year and a half. It already is in use in pilot projects with local police in Seattle, San Diego and a handful of other areas, officials said.'"

Comments

About time

[Salvance]

I actually think this is a great thing. It always seemed ridiculous to me that law enforcement might need to spend hours/days retrieving data from other agencies in criminal proceedings.

Re:About time

[eln]

If all it was was linking criminal databases between localities, that would be one thing. Clearly, the ability to see if someone has a criminal record and/or a warrant out for his arrest in another state is valuable information. However, tracking other sorts of data on people, even when they have not been charged or convicted of anything, as the summary seems to suggest, is a whole different kettle of fish.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

... until you're arrested in Florida for an unpaid parking ticket in Ohio.

Re:About time

[mpapet]

Except when a bad cop uses the database to further their own enterprise.

And we know there's never been cops that work for organized crime or, maybe perhaps running their own enterprise. Now, they will have the ability to expand operations in a massive way.

I agree with your general principal, that law enforcement agencies need to work together more easily, but this should be accomplished through IT standards and a legislative agenda. We've got NIST to do this kind of thing. Banks in the U.S. have done this with the guiding hand of the federal gov't behind them, why should law enforcement be any different?

Re:About time

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

However, tracking other sorts of data on people, even when they have not been charged or convicted of anything, as the summary seems to suggest, is a whole different kettle of fish.

You know the saying amongt traffic patrol officers: "follow someone long enough and he's bound to commit a traffic violation". Well, same thing with OneDOJ: collect enough information about someone and you're bound to find something to incriminate this person eventually.

Incidentally (and cutting short the Godwin Law), this is exactly what the Gestapo was doing prior to, and during WW2: they collected huge masses of information about everybody, and it was well know that they could pull a jacket on almost anybody in Germany and find enough "evidence" to arrest that person.

Re:About time

[fyngyrz]

The USSC has already established that local, state and federal government can accumulate information on people when it feels that such accumulation is in its interests, and further, that it can expose that information to the public, making a complete mockery of any idea of privacy.

The precedent was set using sex offenders and in particular, those sex offenders who had been convicted prior to the instantiation of the registry laws. Forcing those individuals to be on those lists was ruled "not punishment" and hence not subject to ex post facto as laid out in the constitution and subsequent court decisions.

Now the government can list anyone, anytime, on any list it likes, and there is nothing US citizens can do. Other lists have been showing up and causing trouble such as the no-fly list. Nothing anyone can do about that, either. Lists aren't a bad thing, according to every branch of the government.

The fact is, when US citizens gave up those freedoms to hand that little extra bit of crucifixion to sex offenders, you gave it up for everyone else, too. US citizens should have screamed bloody murder at the registry laws, you should have screamed bloody murder at any attempt at ex post facto punishment, and you should have screamed bloody murder at the USSC's ridiculous decision that "registry" is a local, state and federal interest.

The dead, smug silence at the fate of the sex offender - and the "terrorist" - has led the USA to a pitiful shadow of the freedom it once stood for. Sophistry has undermined ex post facto, habeas corpus, the commerce clause, the 2nd amendment, freedom of speech, and now... now you're worried about the feds sharing information. Good luck climbing back up that slope.

Re:About time

[lawpoop]

"The USSC has already established..."

FYI, it's usually abbreviated SCOTUS, as in SCotUS.

Re:About time

[yoder]

That seems to be the ultimate objective with those in power. Keep track of everyone everywhere and you will find that everyone is a criminal of some sort. Those in power can better control their people when they have leverage.

Citizen Joe Smoe: "Senator Longbottom, I am a voter and concerned citizen and would like you to vote against this upcoming legislation that will further erode our privacy."

Senator Longbottom: "You know, I would give this privacy concern of yours more of my time, but hey, you illegally downloaded three songs this year and you have a pirated copy of Windows 98. You're a criminal and you want me to defend your privacy? Give me a break."

Re:About time

[WML MUNSON]

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" -Cardinal Richelieu (French Minister and Cardinal. 1585-1642)

Re:About time

[Dunbal]

...they [The Gestapo] could pull a jacket on almost anybody in Germany and find enough "evidence" to arrest that person.

      At least we don't shoot people for their "crimes". Yet.

Re:About time

[h4rm0ny]

Yes. I wish the public would get this. We're all criminals! To add someone to the database just find something and convict the, For the few who have managed to avoid breaking any of the multitude of laws (and how do you know you haven't there are so many), the laws will just continue to be piled up until there's something you will break whether its criminalising the smoking of relaxing substances or using a PGP key that hasn't been registered with the government. When needed, you will be a criminal. You may not even need to be convicted. There are thousands of DNA samples preserved by the UK police of people who were never convicted of anything and their names are on the police database.

And sepearate to the information on the crimes you may or may not have committed could be a lot of personal information that you may not wish to be searchable by the huge number of people that have access to this.

Re:About time

[cain]

It's good to know that there is at least one cop who doesn't support this fully. I'm glad to see that Boss Hogg hasn't totally cowed you Roscoe.

Re:About time

[idontgno]

At least we don't shoot people for their "crimes". Yet.

If you use the colloquial meaning of "shoot" (as in "shoot up"), yes we do.

Up until 2004, Utah could impose death by firing squad as an execution sentence; the sentence is apparently still applicable to the few convicts that were sentenced before that moratorium and are still on death row.

So, if you were being ironic, ok. If you were being semi-ironic, well, ok. But in truth, we (our representatives in the government--all branches) do shoot people for crimes. My main worry is the sliding window of what constitutes a crime. And maybe, if you were being semi-ironic, that's what you were worrying about too.

Re:About time

[Dunbal]

So, if you were being ironic, ok.

      What I was referring to was the classic "We have found out that you have committed crimes against the state, here is a gun. If you are still in the room when we come back in 2 minutes, we will shoot you and your whole family" line from the Gestapo. We're not QUITE there yet, but soon...

Re:About time

[pilgrim23]

Indeed yes; a more efficient Police is needed to support a more efficient Police State. Ease of access of your data (and if your data is in there OF COURSE you are a criminal that needs data kept on them) is essential.
Perhaps all police personnel files should be shared with Wal*Mart while we are at it. the discount on uniform purchase (sale on Jack Boots for example) would certainly offset any security concern of sharing home addresses with minimum wage earning clerks with possible previous criminal records... You see? unforseen consequences ALWAYS happen

Re:About time

[Moofie]

Because cops have guns, and can break into your house in the middle of the night and shoot you. Banks don't do that.

Cops can, and should, be held to the highest moral, legal, and ethical standards, not the lowest ones.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wish I could see my file and nobody else's.

Re:About time

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Taking away the right to bear arms for offenses committed before the passage of the law is another example.

18 USC 922(g)(8) and 18 USC 922(g)(9) are examples. 10 year sentence for violation (18 USC 924(a)(2)).

That's ex-post facto, since taking away the right to bear arms is a punishment, and this punishment (18 USC 922(g)(8) and 18 USC 922(g)9)) is being imposed on people even though it was not a punishment in force at the time of the act which resulted in the loss of the right to bear arms.

It would be like passing a law giving people a 10 year sentence if posted anything on the Internet (1st Amendment instead of 2nd) after they had driven more than 10 mph over the speed limit (minor criminal) or if they'd ever lost a lawsuit (civil), and furthermore, imposing the penalty for acts committed before the new law was passed. Yes, absurd, but a clear parallel to the 18 USC 922(g)(8)/(9) case.

Re:About time

[Artifakt]

The Gestapo started assembling records on potential subversives and criminals and even running small pilot programs where they incarcerated people as early as 1931. At first the records were focused on people many considered undesirables, and the small scale incarceration programs were often technically exceeding the boundaries German law still had at the time. Organized camps were seen by 1933. At that point, most of the people in the gestapo's record's programs and in these camps fell into one of five groups. Conventional criminals (particularly allegedly mentally deficient criminals), Communists/Trade Unionists/Social Democrats, Jehovah's Witnesses and other religious groups that refused to swear oaths of allegence, Gypsies, and homosexuals. It was about August of 1937 when these groups began to be eclipsed by growing numbers of Jews as the 'final solution' was implemented.
      Massive records gathering helped greatly to implement this program without public outcry. Whenever possible, political or religious opponents were actually arrested first for some crime, even if it was often very minor, and the public records showed them as serving time for other criminal acts rather than politically related acts. While court records may show that the person was primarily given a 10 year sentence for having publically spoken against Hitler, for example, they were whenever possible given additional charges, such as illegal weapons posession, hoarding of contraband, or other dangerous sounding or disreputable charges, even if these were mere three month midemeanors under German law. The press generally reported the sentences as being for one or two of the non-political crimes, and miscellanious other unspecified offenses.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't??? I would guess that just about every day in America the police shoot and kill someone. Should the crime of resisting arrest or moving your hand in the wrong way (such that it scares an officer) be punishable by death?

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

You think the sex offender lists are bad?

In New York state sex offenders can now be locked up in psych wards after their prison term is finished if a shrink decides that they are still a risk...

Re:About time

[nightfire-unique]

On the plus side, the sex offender registry has been so damaged by abuse (adding scores of people who aren't dangerous, or even "sex" offenders), it will soon be to the point where there's no shame being on the list.

"Says here you're a sex offender."

"Yep; I pissed on my neighbor's car when he parked on my side of the lot."

"Hilarious. Ah well, anyway, you're hired."

Re:About time

[fyngyrz]

You think the sex offender lists are bad?

Not really. I think the fact that people were put on them ex post facto is monumentally bad, and I think the reasoning that "registration is not punishment" is utterly unsound, and I think the trend towards calling everyone from your basic person attracted to 16...18-year old bodies to the fellow who pees in a bush to streakers "sex offenders" is nothing less than stupid, and I think the "you can never get off this list" is downright suicidal behavior for society — eventually, someone will snap over this mistreatment. But I am not against the community keeping a close eye on actual pedophiles and violent offenders for a reasonable length of time, say a year or three. At that point, I think the public record should be cleared so they can have a chance at real jobs and opportunities. A non-public record needs to be kept so that re-offense results in harsher punishment. Such as death. That's what I think.

In New York state sex offenders can now be locked up in psych wards after their prison term is finished if a shrink decides that they are still a risk.

I view psychology to date as a failed science in any case and so I would never support involving any member of the psychiatric community in any legal proceeding. People are too different for any such broad-stroking them into classes based on the opinion of known fad followers. This week it's Jung, next week its Froyd, then it's regression therapy, the blatant attempts at making bad metaphor and then trying to make them fit by force upon the public is reminiscent of religion to me. The very poorest kind of reasoning.

Re:About time

[fyngyrz]

On the plus side, the sex offender registry has been so damaged by abuse (adding scores of people who aren't dangerous, or even "sex" offenders), it will soon be to the point where there's no shame being on the list.

Ouch. This isn't a plus side. Shame, or at least remorse, is appropriate. For a reasonable length of time. Not a lifetime. In any case, the problem is that someone on these lifetime lists can't re-integrate into society, not because of shame, but because when there is a choice between two candidates for a job, the sex offender is always going to be cast aside. Even in your example, this will happen. Pissed on a neighbor's car? And the other applicant didn't? They're getting the job - not you. What we end up with is a reserve of people who cannot, under any circumstances, recover from the punishment they have received and re-integrate with society. This hammers them, their families, and eventually will turn around and bite society when someone who has been wronged in this way turns around and deals punishment back to the system, probably in more than equal measure.

Mark my words, it is as inevitable as water flowing downhill.

Re:About time

[zippthorne]

Um.. that's much better than the list. If the people on these lists are so dangerous that their potential neighbors need to be on extra special watch when they move in nearby, then they're dangerous enough that we shouldn't be letting them out in public at all.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

You know the saying amongt traffic patrol officers: "follow someone long enough and he's bound to commit a traffic violation".

Yep. Exactly that happened to my daughter some years back when she had the temerity to take her VW ug to the house of a guy she was dating in an upscale area on the San Francisco peninsula. She didn't make a full wheel stop at an arterial and got nailed. This despite the fact she knew the prick

was following her.

The canonical statement of the issue is as follows:

"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

-- Cardinal Richelieu

Re:About time

[nightfire-unique]

What we end up with is a reserve of people who cannot, under any circumstances, recover from the punishment they have received and re-integrate with society.

I'm sorry; I'm so jaded at this point in my life, I can't help but believe that this was the intent. I just think the system is failing, because they have abused it too much.

It's really simple: create classes of people that you can use as scapegoats and targets. You can't (unfairly) rule a united people, so divide them. It happens everywhere: at work, school, and in government. Find a way to split a large group of people down easily identifyable lines, and keep hammering your talking points home. One side will fear the other, and the other side will fear for their lives. As a leader, you can then step in, and provide both sides with what they "need."

Re:About time

[LuYu]

FYI, it's usually abbreviated SCOTUS, as in SCotUS.

Now we have politically correct acronyms?

Re:About time

[MurphyZero]

And if Senator Longbottom wants to play the blame game, he's probably got lots of skeletons in his closet, many of which will send him to jail for a long time.

Re:About time

[LuYu]

On a smaller scale, this happened to a friend of mine. He got stopped for speeding, and they ran his plates and found out that he had an outstanding speeding ticket in the state capitol. They held him for like four hours while the state capitol's police department decided whether or not to send a bus for him. At the time, I thought this was very wrong. Just imagine this for a speeding ticket in Alaska when the person lives in Florida or something. Imagine something like a week in handcuffs on a bus over a US$100 ticket.

Re:About time

[LuYu]

I agree with your general principal, that law enforcement agencies need to work together more easily, but this should be accomplished through IT standards and a legislative agenda. We've got NIST to do this kind of thing. Banks in the U.S. have done this with the guiding hand of the federal gov't behind them, why should law enforcement be any different?

You must be joking. Have you not read the Constitution?

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State [Article 1 Section 10 Subsection 3]

I do not see this State to State communication as being authorized by Congress. This sharing is a violation of each State's citizen's rights. If you have been too indoctrinated by the modern media, I will give you a definition: State = Country; State != Province. Each State is supposed to be an independent country with its own laws. These databases make everyone in them something akin to international criminals. Would you like to become an international criminal over a speeding ticket?

Also, just because the banks have such databases does not mean that the government should as well. The fact that the Federal government keeps files on all individuals in the US is a violation of your right to privacy. That information should be held by the State governments and should only be released with a court order.

The Federal government should be different because their job is to create a single face for the States to the outside world. The Federal government's job is not to police people within the US unless two or more States need someone to investigate multi-State criminals. The reason the Federal government is needed here is that the States are not supposed to work together.

Finally, law enforcement in the US is not supposed to be easy. The Constitution makes proving guilt quite difficult. It errs on the side of innocence, not guilt. This is one of your important freedoms. Erring on the side of guilt will result in a police state, and opinions like "databases are not a bad thing" are just the type of thing that will make everybody a criminal.

Re:About time

[Evilest Doer]

ncidentally (and cutting short the Godwin Law), this is exactly what the Gestapo was doing prior to, and during WW2: they collected huge masses of information about everybody, and it was well know that they could pull a jacket on almost anybody in Germany and find enough "evidence" to arrest that person.

Sorry, not to get too off-topic, but this is one of the little things I really liked about ST:DS9. The writers understood that one thing despotic regimes have in common is a damn good system of filing and information tracking. The Cardassians were nothing if not excellent record keepers (as were, in reality, the Romans, the Nazis, Napolean, etc.).

Re:About time

[Tsagadai]

You hit the nail on the head. Those who turn over the rights of all for the benefit of a few has got us all in this mess. The sex offenders registry is a stupid idea. I've seen a guy in my street hounded by fundementalists worst than anything I saw in the middle east. Throwing rocks and rotten food at him and his house. Fair enough the guy was an ex crim but he served the 20 year sentence our judicial system dealt him. If he reoffends he will be caught. The registry is for vigilantees and fanatics to hound people. What do you think this system will be used for? The same damn thing. As a passionate anti present shithead government campaigner I'm not feeling very keen on this.

Re:About time

[fredklein]

...but he has the 'pull' to get his data deleted or made 'private'.

Re:About time

[jbdigriz]

This is just Poindexter's TIA project come back to life under a DOJ aegis. Similiar to the M.A.T.R.I.X project, which has been foundering best I can tell (due to the reluctance of a few recalcitrant state AG's, among them Thurbert Baker of GA. The voters showed their appreciation by not reelecting him, as I recall.) All it takes it that one last fairly trivial step of tieing OneDOJ in with existing corporate and government medical, credit, property, web-surfing, library checkouts, magazine subscriptions, banking, purchasing, down to how much coffee you drink etc. records and you have the ultimate bureaucrat, extortion artist, or social engineer's wet dream, all on a patrol cop's laptop.

The thing is, as you point out, the concept is not new. Re Godwin, I keep saying Hitler actually won that war, and some people even understand this, but this scope and level of detail was in fact pioneered by the Catholic Church, and beloved of clergy down through the ages, which (excuse me while I indulge in sarcasm) explains the advanced state of modern civilization.

In the law enforcement/intel arena, this level of interjurisdictional cooperation is not new either, at least for select lucky individuals. That's troubling enough, but the real problem here is putting tools like this in the hands of any greedy underpaid beat cop with notions of grandeur, or other nosy, busybody public employee or corrupt bureaucrat with influence to push or insider info to sell. You might in that case go ahead and give mobsters, bounty hunters, collection agencies, private dicks, etc. the same info, because they're going to get it under the table anyway. Under those circumstances I can only say "Hack the planet!" and release to all, open-sourced. Let the chips fall where they may. I've got nothing to hide. Have you, Mr. Police Chief, or Ms. DOJ TLA field agent? Or, hell yes, you, Mr. Pres., or you Sen. Snort? Something to think about, eh?

Re:About time

[jbdigriz]

No doubt. From the Post story...

"Much information will be kept out of the system, including data about public corruption cases, classified or sensitive topics, confidential informants, administrative cases and civil rights probes involving allegations of wrongdoing by police, officials said."

I say what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I always felt, any court ordered redactions aside, the data in the NCIC and state equivalents at least is public record and maintained with public funds. Taxpayers shouldn't have to fund access, maybe, but the gov't could allow replication to qualified mirrors. Be a good chance to set up some QC for all those cases of mistaken identity and such, too. A little customer feedback, if you will.

As far as OneDOJ goes. You should certainly have access to all the information the govt. has collected on you, personally. All of it. Period. Whether you're in a criminal proceeding or not. (Oddly, it's probably easier if you are. For your lawyer anyway.) There should be no a priori redaction of the names of people who slandered you in interviews with the FBI, etc.

Like I said, let the chips fall where they may. There's that Patriot Act bs. to deal with, and some other things, but they need dealing with anyway.

Re:About time

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd be surprised, tho, to know how many bones some people can break, um, hanging themselves, yeah that's it, in jail.

Re:About time

[jbdigriz]

Psychologists and their other secular brethren in the "social sciences" have pretty much taken the place of clergymen in the U.S. legal system. That's why clergymen are so jealous of the profession. Doesn't stop them from going into the mental health racket themselves and getting those state funds. I must say though, it is amusing to see the Baptists around here trying to reconcile modern addiction treatments with hellfire and damnation, original sin, etc. Not to pick on them, but they are trying to leach off the taxpayers with their "faith-based" approach to things and that makes them fair game.

To what extent any of that affects their credibility as legal witnesses I leave as an exercise to the reader.

"The bitch gave me toxoplasmosis, Your Honor, so I HAD to smack her!"

An Acer Ferrari laptop

[Timesprout]

To the first person who cracks this database and enters cases for Gates as a baby eating canibal and Ballmer as a serial chair chucker.

Re:An Acer Ferrari laptop

[Anonymous Coward]

Done. Now e-mail me the laptop

Re:An Acer Ferrari laptop

[Anonymous Coward]

Done. Now e-mail me the laptop

Lemme guess, anonymouscoward@anonymous.org? Oh wait, I'm anonymous too...

Useful Cause

[jmickle]

This surely could have a useful cause to see if people are wanted criminals in other states. Also can cut down the time for the feds to figure out what to do with you. It is ridiculous how it does take up to weeks just to pull a case number from a simple case. Consolidation seems to be the key here! hope they have a good redundant backup system :-P (anyone see record clearing coming soon? )

Re:Useful Cause

[Enoxice]

Redundancy? Of course it will have redundancy; they're going to put an unencrypted copy of the database on every single DoJ laptop and desktop, unencrypted and accessable from the web.

Re:Useful Cause

[jmickle]

LOL will this include the child porn people? Cause don't they use examples of the child porn caught from the person. At this point would it now become a child porn website? LOL

Like Crimnet

[MECC]

Minnesota has something like called 'crimnet'. Its so inaccurate and awkward that many cops to do use it give up and use commercial web sites (who in turn mine data from crimnet and make it easier to search). Its harder now to correct bad information, and bad people get away while good people get permanently nailed - without ever having committed a crime.

This looks like a great opportunity for terrorists, many of whom have better technical resources that the feds.

Re:Like Crimnet

[yoder]

I've heard about the problems they are having with that. Crimnet is not user friendly enough so law enforcement is going to a private database. Problem is, Crimnet will correct their mistakes, the private companies do not.

Weeeee

[El Lobo]

More centralized information about everyone. Make it easier for the Big Brother to control everything! Exactly what we all need.

Re:Weeeee

[k1e0x]

This is not a troll comment.

Your simply illustrating a point by bring absurd.. /. mods don't understand this form of argument..

I also happen to agree with your point. Nice one. its true. We DO need more Government! This United Police States of America is a wreck and only government laws can fix it. ;-)

Consumer Cops?

[k1e0x]

I don't like this because I think it has the potential for massive abuse. They also can use it to cross reference consumer databases and also look up information past offences. You should not be charged with crimes based solely on the fact that you have plead guilty before, sometimes people plead guilty for crimes they don't commit.

Imagine if you forget to pay Geico one morning you could have your RFID license flagged and be arrested on your way to work for not having insurance.

Also they say association ? does that mean your gang?

This is not a good thing.

Before You Panic ...

[carpeweb]

... Remember that the FBI (under DOJ) can't find it's ass with both hands when it concerns IT. Their pre-9/11 systems overhaul/upgrade is still a massive failure. Any reason to believe this will be different?

Re:Before You Panic ...

[k1e0x]

No and thats another problem.. what happens when this ubergov database gets hacked.

This is just a bad idea from start to finish.. but its going to happen.. one way or another this is the future of the USA.

Re:Before You Panic ...

[fyngyrz]

what happens when this ubergov database gets hacked.

What makes you think it will need to be hacked? You can go right on the web and check to see if your neighbor is a sex offender today. The information isn't secret or restricted. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The government thinks you should know. Odds are excellent they'll think you should know if your neighbor is a mugger or a thief or a drug user or a mad bomber as well. Or... if they might be at some point in the future! After all, you did buy bleach at the grocery store last week...

Re:Before You Panic ...

[k1e0x]

Really.. bleach and cold medication.. I must be making microwave crank at home.

The sex offender thing is out of control also. I knew a guy that was caught in high school streeaking in the mall and he was convicted as a "sex offender".

Re:Before You Panic ...

[carpeweb]

I meant that I didn't think it would get off the ground, so there won't be anything to hack, at least not for a long while.

Re:Before You Panic ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd get added to the database of clueless drug manufacturer wannabees.

Bleach ain't used in making it!

Re:Before You Panic ...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

You can go right on the web and check to see if your neighbor is a sex offender today.

And what if he isn't? He could still be in there because it was (wait for it) hacked.

Opt out.

[The Neck]

Wikicop you say?

The_neck.
.

Oh come now

[Anonymous Coward]

"'Civil-liberties and privacy advocates say the scale and contents of such a database raise immediate privacy and civil rights concerns, in part because tens of thousands of local police officers could gain access to personal details about people who have not been arrested or charged with crimes."

Since when did the DOJ concern itself with such minor details as privacy and/or actually being charged with a crime to jail people?

If this super sluth of a data base goes the way of most of the goverments attempts it will be just another costly fubar project that will never work right and slip out of sight.

Re:Oh come now

[mandelbr0t]

The most interesting thing about this quote is that it started page 2 of the article. Page 1 seemed to take an informative tone, but it mostly tasted like Pablum. Talk about not rocking the boat. Don't want people accidentally reading something about "civil liberties" and thinking it applies to them. mandelbr0t

Re:Oh come now

[Anonymous Coward]

...it will be just another costly fubar project that will never work right and slip out of sight

Au contraire, it will more likely never work, but will remain in place to be abused as required by the cops.

Privacy vs. Protection?

[Scothoser]

This is an age-old question, and one that will never be answered, I'm afraid. Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies? How is this different than local police creating their own database of case files? What does it mean to have the right to privacy? These are questions that have never fully been answered, I'm afraid. The first problem is that the US Constitution currently does not , and yet it's the one right that we constantly want protected.

The other problem is that, even if the Constitution guaranteed the right to privacy, it would only guarantee that right to it's citizens. If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates. But is that so? Has that been determined? I am unaware of any court case or legislation that guarantees the citizenship of convicted criminals, nor of any that revokes their citizenship.

I think the first thing that needs to be done with regards to privacy concerns is to amend the constitution to allow for the right to privacy. Once this is complete, then the privacy advocates will have a platform on which to base their objections that is rooted within the Constitution. From there, other concerns can be addressed, such as the citizenship status of convicted criminals.

That being said, I support any collaboration between law enforcement agencies in protecting the citizenry, and do not see any abuses that have not already been in place since Government has been in place. The question is, are there any statistical evidence to support the collaboration in the apprehension and conviction of law breakers vs. the eventual mistakes and abuses that are feared?

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's about who interprets data, and their motives.

And it's about a one-way deal for now. They collect. They interpret. They arrest. If they get bad guys, I'm all for it, but I have to ask exactly what we're doing to enhance OUR ability to track THEIR actions?

Nothing whatever, aside from people with movie-taking cell phones.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[k1e0x]

>> If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no
>> longer citizens?

You might ask José Padilla.

If you are charged with a crime you have the 5th and 6th and 7th amendments because your rights are in jeopardy and need extra protection. If you are found guilty you have the 8th amendment to grant you a fair, just, and humane sentence.

The answer is, yes they are still citizens and still have rights.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[fyngyrz]

If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates.

The problem with creating a permanent criminal class is that there is no possibility of redemption or reform. The only reasonable path is to have two, and only two, classes of crimes. The unredeemable, in which case imprisonment is life without parole, or death; and the redeemable, where the criminal's debt to society is considered 100% paid upon completion of the assigned punishment or rehabilitative course.

By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.

Today, a background check is considered normal in order to get a job. This includes your criminal records, if any. If you have a criminal record, you're not going to get any job for which there is competition (in other words, most of them.) You're a permanent criminal, unredeemable, permanently evil and a bottom-feeder.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[drinkypoo]

By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.

Let's not forget that when we combine the redeemable and unredeemable in the same facility (not that I really believe that anyone out there is literally unredeemable, but they're useful labels for this conversation) the redeemable tend to shift towards the unredeemable. I know that if I were thrown into prison for something stupid, and I got assraped, my first stop out of jail would be to go pick up some cached firearms and my second stop would be the DA's house, the third the Judge's, and so on. Oh sure, it wouldn't help me - I'd probably just go right back in. But at least I'd be improving the legal system.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[Ian Alexander]

"This is an age-old question, and one that will never be answered, I'm afraid. Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies?"

Um, no, it was answered a long time ago by a fella by name of Benjamin Franklin.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

A government's only legitimate purpose is in protecting your rights and there's something wrong when it starts trying to justify the erosion of those very rights to ease their protection. I suppose they think that a smaller target is harder to hit.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[HazMathew]

Interesting. Now more than ever its important to know your rights and a good attorney. All US police officers bend the rules, lie, and use coercion to get you to give up your rights so you admit guilt before you are given a fair trail. It makes them look good, it's part of their training. In some cases now (DUIs) you are guilty before proven innocent, not the other way around as we are often told. On traffic stops what do you hear most common? "Do you know why I pulled you over?". Answering anything other than "no sir" and you will most likely admit guilt. Remember your rights everyone. A few tips to police encounters:

1. Never admit guilt, but do cooperate
2. Answer questions with questions
3. State clearly that you do not submit to any searches

Stay safe.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[fyngyrz]

I know that if I were thrown into prison for something stupid, and I got assraped, my first stop out of jail would be to go pick up some cached firearms and my second stop would be the DA's house, the third the Judge's, and so on. Oh sure, it wouldn't help me - I'd probably just go right back in.

The system actually encourages this kind of thinking by making sure that your job, possessions, friendships, future employability, finances and family relationships all suffer to their very limits, as well as the abuse above and beyond simple incarceration you would suffer in prison. It is only a matter of time before someone does exactly what you're describing, and once it starts... I doubt it will stop.

Also, one should not forget the thirteenth amendment which specifically offers you up, as a criminal, to the ranks of legal slavery and indentured servitude.

Just a matter of time. If not you, then some other infuriated and abused citizen.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[Moofie]

"Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies?"

No. Next question?

"it would only guarantee that right to it's citizens."

Where does this idea come from? The Constitution says NOTHING about the rights of citizens (except for voting). It lists some of the inalienable rights of all persons that the US Government is explicitly forbidden from infringing.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[fyngyrz]

State clearly that you do not submit to any searches

This is a dead-certain way to get searched, just so you know. If you want to take this approach, you need a hidden video camera and sensitive microphones in your cabin and all around the exterior of your car, as well as a thoroughly and professionally hidden recording system. Which will serve you well in court, but only one time. Because the fact that you pulled this off will circulate through the entire police force in about a day. Perhaps even the entire nation.

You can claim you said this (and you can say it, too) but the cop will simply deny it, and your credibility cannot overpower the cops in court without an entire car full of sober, socially respected companions (I'm talking, bankers, lawyers, doctors, judges, cops.) A video recording, at least at the moment, can do the job for you.

The bottom line: Any action you take that depends upon the sense of justice of the cop, or your word against theirs, has a very, very low probability of succeeding.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[novus ordo]

Hm the quote at the bottom of the page seems remarkably appropriate:

The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. -- Oscar Wilde

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[HazMathew]

Well, if you refuse a search, the officer has to prove he had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to do so. I've said this and not gotten searched (officers asked to come into my house). When you say this you show to the officer you understand your rights and are not about to give them up. Officers need search warrants to search your residence, out of sight areas of your car, your trunk and any locked boxes inside. If you simply submit to a search the officer does not have to prove that he had reasonable doubt to search you. If you have contraband and you submit to a search you WILL get arrested and prosecuted. If you do not submit to a search within your rights anything found during a search atleast has a chance of being deemed "unreasonable" and thrown out of court if not reduced. DO NOT SUBMIT TO SEARCHES, especially if you have contraband, you'll goto jail.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[fyngyrz]

Well, if you refuse a search, the officer has to prove he had evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to do so.

No. All he has to do is say you didn't refuse.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[HazMathew]

Thats what lawyers are for. To expose any holes in the officers story or their course of action. When you get out of the car close your door and lock it. Refusing a search is better than throwing your hands in the air and simply submitting. Most officers will find its not worth their time to push around a polite person who knows and stands up for their rights. Most of the time there is backup and multiple officers have to lie, which is harder for them. Bottom line, never submit to a search. It IS your right you can give it up or leverage it. You're right there are officers who lie but why simply give up your right?

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[mandelbr0t]

By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.

How do you determine that someone has no hope? How do you know that the motivation for their crimes is you? You seem to know an awful lot about this person whom you've condemned as unredeemable person. I agree that a pattern of behaviour says a lot, and a person's criminal record should be considered while they are on trial. However, I don't see that justice is improved by assigning a punishment other than the one that fits the crime just because of their past difficulties. 6 armed robbery convictions should have a sentence of 6xa single armed robbery conviction. The fact that the suspect had been involved in 5 prior armed robberies should make the 6th conviction pretty easy. It should also mean that the 6th sentence doesn't have a chance for early parole. It should also mean that it's easy to convince authorities that surveillance of this particular individual when he is freed is a prudent measure. It shouldn't however, carry an automatic life (or death) sentence.

Today, a background check is considered normal in order to get a job. This includes your criminal records, if any. If you have a criminal record, you're not going to get any job for which there is competition (in other words, most of them.) You're a permanent criminal, unredeemable, permanently evil and a bottom-feeder.

Yes, and it also includes your credit record. Funny that you mention societal classes, since discrimination on the basis of credit record is also a class-bias: discrimination against the poor. It turns out the the intersection between the criminal class and the poor is rather large (guess what the most common motivation for being a criminal is). There's a vicious circle here: people with bad credit records don't get a job, and turn to crime to survive. People with criminal records can't get jobs and resort to crime to survive. With any luck, your background check in the future will include a high-quality, full-colour photograph, your last 12 months of searches on all popular search engines, all of your purchases for the last 12 months, your FBI case file, your *AA case file, your ISP firewall logs, and anything else that tickles your fancy. That way, we can be sure that we employ only Caucasian Christian Republicans, who as we all know, are genetically incapable of being poor or criminal.

The connection everyone seems to make is this: once a screw-up, always a screw-up. In the words of your own immortal deity: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." For some reason, Christians never seem to live that one. Crime is a product of the society you live in. If you want to rehabilitate the criminals, reform your society instead of demonizing the criminals.

Finally, to quote Mark Twain on the subject: "The only truly American criminal class is Congress."

mandelbr0t

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

you need a hidden video camera and sensitive microphones

The voice recording will get the whole thing suppressed as evidence in most states.

The bitch Linda Tripp only got off because she was in some corrupt state like NJ where surreptitious voice recording is legal.

Personally, I believe it should be allowed in any contact with any agency of government, as they now hold all the cards.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[fyngyrz]

How do you determine that someone has no hope?

I observe that society will not let them have any job that is not utterly menial; I observe, particularly in the case of sexual offenders who are listed for life, that they can never assume that the look they just got from the old lady next door isn't brimming with hatred, that they are proscribed from living in various areas (which may be entire towns) and I observe that society is so willing to commit these people to the bottom-most rung of existence that they are willing to ruin their own freedoms to do so. I look at all this, and I conclude that even if the person doesn't know it, they have no hope of being anything other than a gutter scraping, economically speaking. And economics, in a very practical sense, affects everything. My hope for them is gone.

You seem to know an awful lot about this person whom you've condemned as unredeemable person.

Not me; society. I don't think you really understood what I wrote. Maybe you should read again.

I don't see that justice is improved by assigning a punishment other than the one that fits the crime just because of their past difficulties. 6 armed robbery convictions should have a sentence of 6xa single armed robbery conviction.

I disagree. If someone cannot learn not to harm their fellow citizens, something further must be done. Something serious. Armed robbery isn't at the same level as refusing to wear a seat-belt, marrying two consenting spouses, or smoking a joint.

Yes, and it also includes your credit record. Funny that you mention societal classes, since discrimination on the basis of credit record is also a class-bias: discrimination against the poor

No argument from me. I do not believe that either course of action is sensible. Were it up to me, I would close this door to job discrimination, as well as the one that allows searching criminal records.

The connection everyone seems to make is this: once a screw-up, always a screw-up. In the words of your own immortal deity: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Ah. You have mistaken me for a religious person. Let me assure you that I am not. I am the perfect definition of an atheist; I hold no belief in any god or gods in any degree, small or large. And I do not agree, once a screw up, always a screw up. However, I observe, a screw-up over and over again needs something more convincing to get them to stop. Given that the crime costs other people life or limb, it isn't worth trying to re-integrate the criminal after the second time, and at that point, under those specific circumstances, I would support executing the criminal.

Finally, to quote Mark Twain on the subject: "The only truly American criminal class is Congress."

Please explain why you feel this quote is relevant. Twain was observing that the American political system, unique in and of itself, creates opportunities for new types of crimes for those involved in it, and that they succumb to temptation and commit them. This is true. How would you apply his wisdom in the current thread?

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[fyngyrz]

Thats what lawyers are for.

This situation is typically far too limited for a lawyer to resolve. You claim you did not consent; the cop says you did, in one word: "yes." Now, how many "holes" do you think can be punched into that story? Seriously? The cops stick to their side, you stick to yours.

Now, consider this: If you had something to hide -- say, the cops found (or "found", since you pissed them off) some contraband. Just how long do you think the court will spend on that single declaration of "yes" or "no"? You're going to jail. Now.

The fact is, the cops, and the courts, hold all the power. The lawyer is there to earn money, and will get it no matter what happens to you. Once you realize that, perhaps you'll have a little less faith in what they can get done on your behalf. You have to change the situation so that you have the power. Record, and let the entire world know the cop is lying. That's the solution. That's the only solution.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[fyngyrz]

The voice recording will get the whole thing suppressed as evidence in most states.

You want that recording to go to the local paper and radio station, to youtube, and to digg. Not the court. You want everyone in the entire state or province to know those cops lied. It is the only way you can leverage power of your own. In a courtroom, you have none, and I maintain that if you do not record, you had best meekly and mildly conform to any request for a search. Otherwise you will learn how unequal the balance of power really is.

Personally, I believe it should be allowed in any contact with any agency of government, as they now hold all the cards.

I believe it should be allowed because they are, in the most precise sense of the word, our employees.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why anyone thinks that privacy is not a right enumerated in the Constitution (technically, in the Bill of Rights.) Being secure in my person and house against unreasonable search and seizure, to my mind, means that the Government shall keep its nose out of my business except where a "reasonable person" (an establish legal standard) agrees that my business should be made public and/or subject to Governmental oversight.

Maybe its just me?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[jbdigriz]

Heh.

1 person, they may think he's really sick, and they won't take him.

2 peeople do it, they may think they're both faggots, and not take either one.

But can you imagine 3 people a day coming in and singing a bar of Alice's Restaurant? They may think it's an organization. 50 a day, and they may think it's a Movement. And that's what it would be. The Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement. Comforting thought for the blood-thirsty among us, but they'll Columbine you with that one.

Myself, I think corrupt judges, dishonest cops, crooked politicians, etc. should get a chance to go sit on the Group W bench with the father-rapers just like everyone else.

Preemptively.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[jbdigriz]

Upon reflection, I don't think that. That's just the vicious cycle repeating. There's no good-guy badges to be had here either. The system is hosed. Don't mean to apologize for the assholes and crooks of the world. I wouldn't blame anyone for going Nomen Nescio on them, either, 'cuz I've been there, and some people should probably get medals, as long as they only go after the ones the KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, have screwed them and others over, but in the long run that doesn't make the world a better place.

What does make the world a better place is, like I a said elsewhere, grist for another mill, but it's clear the DOJ's plan as outlined is an attack on civil liberties and more than an invitation, no, a recipe, for abuse. And it will be abused, mightily, because the info systems in place today are routinely abused for political ends and material gain.

So, excuse me for goofing in the previous post. Apologies to Arlo, btw. Also, I have found that father-rapers are an overrated menace. Leastwise all the ones I know have more sense than to fuck with me.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[couchslug]

It isn't that simple.
I've met plenty of people who are just permanently, by choice of repeated behaviors, petty losers and minor offenders. It would be counterproductive and horrendously expensive to lock them all up for life, but they should be flagged by the system so those of us who want to avoid hiring them in a position of trust can do so.
They don't rate being considered redeemed, because they are not and will not be redeemed.
They don't rate life in Supermax either.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection?

[fyngyrz]

It isn't that simple.

On the contrary, I have high confidence it could be.

The people you describe are, by definition in my view, redeemable in the sense that they can repay the consequences of their acts. This is because their acts are petty, and repayment can always be made to society for a petty act. Money, property, work product. If they re-offend, further payment can be extracted, ad infinitum. To be unredeemable, one must transcend the petty in the first place so that repayment is impossible (taking life, limb or otherwise causing un-healable personal injury), and then demonstrate an inability to stay clear of further acts of equivalent seriousness. At that point, I'd put someone down without remorse.

ObLOTR

[LittleGuy]

OneDOJ to rule them all, OneDOJ to find them,
OneDOJ to bring them all and in the darkness remand them
To the Land of Maricopa where the Arpaio lie.

Re:ObLOTR

[Anonymous Coward]

I had to correct the last line: To the Land of Maricopa where the victims of Arpaio lie.

Hmmm

[Sv-Manowar]

It's not so much the government I would be worried about abusing this system, it's the contractors hired to create/maintain it - as well as the possibility of commercialisation of certain parts of it. Let's say company X will pay so many millions to get details on the type of car a certain demographic drives (of course anonymous to avoid civil liberties being eroded) - how far would they allow this and how much money would it take to start getting full data - (for those who say it wouldn't be allowed, and example of it in action is the DVLA in the UK which issues drivers licenses - who sell all of the data required for you driving license for as little as $4 each to any company that request it). This is of course forgetting the drive that companies/hackers/criminal gangs would have to get access to that database - whether it be through a human access point (having someone with authority use it for them, or finding bugs - the monetary rewards available for the data that could be obtained would more than enough pay teams of hackers to try and gain access.

I have the worry that although this may be implemented in the best of faiths, it will eventually be perverted and used for a number of different reasons that it was originally developed for.

New Market Demographic?

[cez]

Can't wait for them to realize the marketing potential they have there! Names & addresses of everyone with a criminal disposition, no matter if they've been charged with anything! I wouldn't mind paying them for that information so I could send out some pamphlets on my new crow-bar, garunteed to break any window or you're money back*...

*Some restrictions apply.

Re:New Market Demographic?

[Tackhead]

> Can't wait for them to realize the marketing potential they have there! Names & addresses of everyone with a criminal disposition, no matter if they've been charged with anything!

Wait, are we talking about OneDOJ or myspace.com?

Re:New Market Demographic?

[cez]

hell why not both...introducing crimspace, one stop shop for all your evil networking needs

Re:New Market Demographic?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Very funny, but I think it is likely that anyone showing up on any semi-public criminal list would start getting tons of solicitations from lawyers.

Re:New Market Demographic?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm, with crimespace, you'd have people voluntarily putting up evidence of crimes they've committed that may have otherwise gone unnoticed and unpunished and then being surprised when its used against them.

Problematic

[spiritraveller]

The files include investigative reports, criminal-history information, details of offenses, and the names, addresses and other information of criminal suspects or targets.

The big problem I see with this is that it encourages local police to target people (someone who gets pulled over for speeding) on the assumption that if the Feds investigated them, then they must be criminals. I tell all of my DUI clients that if they have been convicted once of DUI, they should never ever drive within ten hours of drinking ANY alcohol for the rest of their lives. The reason is that every time they get pulled over, the cop will see that conviction and will look very hard for evidence of drinking.

But this database has more than just arrest and conviction records. So it is going to cause heightened suspicion and prejudicial treatment of people who have never committed a crime in their lives.

If they can't get enough evidence to convict you or even to arrest you, then how reliable could their information be?

I see little reason for them to be sharing this information on a large scale with local police departments, except that it does give them the power to insert negative information about political activists who some anonymous person in the FBI may not like.

This is certainly not good for civil liberties, and I question its value for fighting crime.

Re:Problematic

[Anonymous Coward]

I tell all of my DUI clients that if they have been convicted once of DUI, they should never ever drive within ten hours of drinking ANY alcohol for the rest of their lives.

So, they didn't know it was a bad idea the first time they did it?

Also, I've had a few drinks and later drove, but I was sober. I have passed 2 field sobriety tests in over a year. So I don't buy that someone who has a DUI is anymore at risk than someone who hasn't. Either they're sober or they aren't.

Re:Problematic

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Many lawyers would rather tell them to keep it up, and keep making the money. :)

Re:Problematic

[orielbean]

I had a related question about DUIs. My buddy got arrested for it, but got Not Guilty at trial and beat it. Now, when a cop runs his plate, does an arrest for DUI show up, or is it a less specific classification that wouldn't raise that red flag every single time he drives?

I agree with you about your advice to the guilty ones - my friend who did not beat her DUI conviction gets pulled over every single time that a cop is behind her. It got so bad on the holidays that she would call her boss and tell her she would be about a half hour late every day.

Re:Problematic

[spiritraveller]

So, they didn't know it was a bad idea the first time they did it?

Apparently not, seeing as they got caught and had to hire me.

Also, I've had a few drinks and later drove, but I was sober. I have passed 2 field sobriety tests in over a year. So I don't buy that someone who has a DUI is anymore at risk than someone who hasn't. Either they're sober or they aren't.

You've never had a DUI, so you don't buy that someone who has had a DUI is at greater risk than you? That's some amazing powers of logic you have there.

When I was in College....

[Newer Guy]

When I was in college in the early 1970's, I participated in the Students for a Democratic Socciety (SDS). I was involved in the Boston area, and helped The Socialist Workers Party do a radio show on the MIT and Northeastern Univ. radio stations there. Some years later I did a Freedom of Information Act request for any FBI stuff. A bunch of it came back, primarily from my activities with the radio show. Now, remember, nothing I did was illegal or even immoral. Nor was I charged with any crime or even ever contacted by the FBI. All this was doe secretly without my knowledge.

I have a real problem with any bored local police officer sitting in his cruiser anywhere to be able to simply type in my name and get information about me from over 30 years ago! Frankly, it's none of their business!. Something similar to this actually has already happened to me. I was driving a car I had just bought with my old plates attached (perfectly legal in Massachusetts for 48 hours provided you have the bill of sale, etc.). I stopped for gas and when I came back from paying a cop was there who wanted to know why my plate number came up with a different car. Turns out he was bored and so he begain typing in license plates of nearby cars int his terminal in the cruiser. What's to stop him turning around and typing my name (which he got from the license plate) into the FBI search?

This gives the cops WAY too much information and power to pry into our private affairs!!

All in the cause of TERRORISM, of courser!! :(

Re:When I was in College....

[Bryansix]

What exactly is private about the fact that you did a radio show?

Re:When I was in College....

[Daemonstar]

All queries in systems like that are tracked; you can't just go running criminal history checks on someone because you're bored. It'll show up, and you will probably be questioned about it. This may vary from state-to-state and from database-to-database.

OTOH, an officer has to have probable cause to initiate an investigation, otherwise the case will be thrown out. If I find someone walking down the street, I can question them all day long, but they can simply walk away and I can do nothing to stop it unless there is probable cause that they have committed, or are about to commit, a crime. Then again, it's all in how you word your probable cause on the forms and what your video shows.

People that abuse their power will eventually be caught, if only by Death.

Re:When I was in College....

[Dunbal]

What exactly is private about the fact that you did a radio show?

      It was a "commie" radio show ;)

Re:When I was in College....

[slashkitty]

Well, the license plate checks are already getting much more automated.

I remember a few years ago in NYC seeing a guy in a car driving around typing in every single license plate # he could see. I'm sure it was just an insurance company thing to check for stolen/missing cars, but who knows how many things they check.

Of course, they have cameras that can read the plates now anyway, don't even need the guy. They can just mount a camera somewhere, or drive it around and map who and where everybody is.

Re:When I was in College....

[Brandybuck]

It's not about privacy. It's about wants. The grandparent didn't "want" people knowing he did a radio show. Thus his righteous indignation that cops have the ability to discover that he did a radio show. It's a very shallow philosophy of rights, but it's par for the course these days. If you don't want something, scream bloody murder about your "rights", and you'll be modded up on Slashdot.

Re:When I was in College....

[karmatic]

An officer has to have probable cause to initiate an investigation.

While this is _technically_ true, it's amazing how low that bar can be. I had the misfortune of dealing with the police not too long ago; I locked my door after leaving it (to keep them from barging in and claiming I consented to a search). They used that fact, and claimed that I was "evasive" and "refused to make eye contact" as the basis for obtaining a search warrant. The first statement is a gross mischaracterization; the second statement was patently false. Part of my job function is sales; I always make eye contact. I wasn't evasive, either - there was no need.

All that matters is that a judge determines probable cause was obtained, which is (of course) granted based largely on the officer's word. In some cases, this is necessary for law enforcement (officer smelled pot), as there isn't any direct evidence which can be gathered, and enforcement of the law requires belief of the officer. The downside to this is the potential for abuse by officers unconstrained by the truth. If they don't find anything, it's no skin off their back. If they do find something, you must have done enough to give them probable cause. The ends justify the means.

I do not mean to imply that _all_ cops are dishonest; rather, the potential for abuse is great, and the dishonest ones are far more noticable. The courts are supposed to serve the interest of justice, and keep officers honest - they don't always (and can't always) do so when the officer is willing to lie about the circumstances or the evidence.

Fortunatly, in my case, the cops were guilty of such gross malfeasance that I should prevail in court, even if it takes several appeals to do so. As an example, I had an officer pull out a knife, and tell me it was his "throwdown knife" - that if I got out of line, he could shoot me, and say I pulled the knife on him, making his shooting me self defense. There were a number of lies told by the arresting officer on the probable cause statement, as well as her reports (more than one officer was involved).

Re:When I was in College....

[Moofie]

Hmm. I think that the right to be left alone is a pretty fundamental notion. Justice Brandeis agrees with me, and disagrees with you.

Is that a shallow philosophy of rights? If I'm not free to go about my business without surveillance, I'm not free at all.

Re:When I was in College....

[dyslexicbunny]

Terrorism isn't even mentioned in the article. Is it unreasonable to have any cooperation at all among the police?

Other posters have mentioned that searches and the like will be tracked and recorded so it isn't just a free access system. Another mentioned about how it helps officers out when dealing with someone they just pulled over. I like their reasoning and would support it.

Provided you have a clean record from then to now, the incidents from thirty years down the road shouldn't matter. If you have just been released from prison, things would be different than if you were nabbed for B&E as a kid, did community service, and straightened up.

Obviously, I'm hoping that the police would show some sense here. Perhaps I might be somewhat idealistic since I haven't had a run-in with the law and am still young. But if managed properly with thorough oversight, I don't believe it would be a huge problem.

Re:When I was in College....

[Brandybuck]

You do indeed have the right to be left alone. But surveillance does not infringe upon that right until it invades your private domain. But the public square is not your domain. While you certainly can demand to be left alone in your own home, you cannot demand to be left alone when you are out in public.

The fact that a radio broadcast was made is public knowledge. You do not have a right to forbid the police from listening to your radio broadcasts. Whining about what you want does not change this one bit.

Re:When I was in College....

[Moofie]

"You do not have a right to forbid the police from listening to your radio broadcasts."

No, but I can and should object to their accumulation of data under the presumption that I am doing Wrong Things.

If there's not a direct investigation of me, they need to not accumulate information about me. This is true for all values of "me".

Re:When I was in College....

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I stopped for gas and when I came back from paying a cop was there who wanted to know why my plate number came up with a different car. Turns out he was bored and so he begain typing in license plates of nearby cars int his terminal in the cruiser.

That much is perfectly reasonable. Your plates are visible to anybody that cares to look, and having them tied to another car is reasonable suspicion that someone stole some plates. I agree about the national search thing. It should only include criminal record/warrant stuff and should only be used when stopping someone as part of some other investigation.

Re:When I was in College....

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The fact that a radio broadcast was made is public knowledge. You do not have a right to forbid the police from listening to your radio broadcasts. Whining about what you want does not change this one bit.

This is different. He didn't hear your broadcast; he has a report that outs you as a communist, which may have an impact on how you are treated. This does cross a line, and should be illegal.

Re:When I was in College....

[Brandybuck]

He wasn't "outed" as a communist, only as someone associated with a known communist organization. But regardless. This would be a matter of privacy if that association had been private, but it was not. He made it public by broadcasting his association with communists on public airwaves.

This should be an important lesson to all young people out there. What you do in your youthful stupidity will bite you in the butt when you are older. No matter how much you want it otherwise, you cannot erase the past.

Re:When I was in College....

[zCyl]

He wasn't "outed" as a communist, only as someone associated with a known communist organization.

Did you miss the 50s? :)

This should be an important lesson to all young people out there. What you do in your youthful stupidity will bite you in the butt when you are older. No matter how much you want it otherwise, you cannot erase the past.

Whether or not you agree with his youthful political views is irrelevant. The most fundamental right of a free democracy is that people must have a COMPLETELY free right to assemble politically, express political views, and associate themselves with political groups without fear of future legal repercussions or police harassment. This is such a fundamentally necessary right that it must be a central focus of ours to avoid things which endanger it.

Re:When I was in College....

[Brandybuck]

Did you miss the 50s? :)

Why, was the grandparent poster's radio broadcast the subject of a congressional hearing?

This is such a fundamentally necessary right that it must be a central focus of ours to avoid things which endanger it.

Even to the point that history itself must be expunged lest someone learn you made a radio broadcast thirty years prior? This is beyond ludicrous!

It saddens me that the once intelligent left has descended so far into senility that it can't even grasp the simple concept that what one does in public is observable by the public.

Re:When I was in College....

[zCyl]

It saddens me that the once intelligent left has descended so far into senility that it can't even grasp the simple concept that what one does in public is observable by the public.

The problem is not with things being observable by the public. The problem is with things being held against you, particularly in matters of law enforcement. Law enforcement should be fair and impartial, yet most humans by their psychological nature are not fair and impartial when they have information which biases their judgment, even if that information is unrelated to the task of law enforcement.

For this reason it is usually prudent to only congregate and provide information related to the law enforcement task at hand.

Re:When I was in College....

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not mean to imply that _all_ cops are dishonest;....

Why not? You'd be right 99 percent of the time. It's the old "thin blue line" mentality. Hell, I even heard a cop in my own family say that if he caught a drunk black guy wandering around in a posh neighborhood, he'd run the guy in. But if it were a similarly drunk white guy in a black neighbohood, "We'd let him know he was in a dangerous part of town and give him a ride home."

The fucking bastards all pee in the same pot.

Re:When I was in College....

[Tsagadai]

You must be new here I've walked up the street, arrested, detained for 10 hours, interrogated and released because of suspicion that we were going to commit a crime(Indecent language). Here in Australia there is something called the big 3 that police can arrest with without any suspicion at all. The three are Indecent language (how many people shout fuck when a policeman tackles them), resisting arrest (if you question why the officer just tackled you) and resisting a directive (policeman tells you to do something that takes a minute and arrests you 30 seconds later). I know people who have criminal records a mile long filled with crimes like this. Are they criminals? Mostly no, usually just someone black or gay or otherwise different from the whitepicket fence folk. I also know that US police can do this too in some states. Crime hasn't been about committing crimes in a while. Look up and look out.

Re:When I was in College....

[Anonymous Coward]

All queries in systems like that are tracked; you can't just go running criminal history checks on someone because you're bored. It'll show up, and you will probably be questioned about it.

Total horseshit -- you'll be promoted for being zealous in your duties. Especially if you come up with one baddy after scoping out thousands of innocents.

What is wrong with the Washington Post?

[Bryansix]

Seriously, which side are they on? They side with criminals here and go against a system which would finally allow law enforcement to seamlessly share case files and information! Exactly what information is there in this system that law enforcement could not already get by calling up the various agencies and then having the file physically sent or driving 50+ miles to pick it up? The answer is nothing! All this system does is make information that was already available more accessible. That means bad news for crime rings and what does the Washington Post do? They play the privacy and civil liberties card. What a crock of shit! If ever there was a newspaper that needed to be boycotted it would be the Washington Post!

Re:What is wrong with the Washington Post?

[Gunfighter]

It's been a while since I lived in the greater D.C. metropolitan area, but from what I can remember there are two major newspapers in D.C.:

Washington Post: Left-leaning, liberal

Washington Times: Right-leaning, conservative

Something tells me that if a similar story were to appear in the Washington Times, it would have a different slant and possible even tout the advantages of this crime database.

Forgiveness Factor?

[End Program]

While I applaud the effort to improve the efficiency of law enforcement, I am concerned about unintended consequences.

One advantage of the old system was a built in forgiveness factor. Someone who had a checked past could clean up their life and move forward in life. Any headaches dealing with the system bias and mistakes would eventually become less important over time as records were destroyed or lost.

Now, you will have one central database where every legal detail on your life could be contained. What happens to impulsive individuals to get in a little trouble when they young?

Will they have a record following them around the rest of their lives? I guess your high school teacher was right when they said, "This is going on your permanent record!"

Re:Forgiveness Factor?

[Dunbal]

I guess your high school teacher was right when they said, "This is going on your permanent record!"

      You're right. Maybe I shouldn't have stabbed her in the eye with the scissors...

Re:Forgiveness Factor?

[joebagodonuts]

What makes you think it an "unintended consequence"?

I'm sure there are principled folks who are thinking that this great big DB will help keep our society safe. I'm equally sure there are equally powerful, but not so principled, folks who want this to further their schemes of maintaining power.

The nature of Institutions is to maintain their power by any means. If some individuals are harmed in the course of the maintenance of power, well, too bad. Human history is replete with examples of individuals and groups being imprisoned, tortured, killed, etc. Just for the crime of opposing the status quo. Don't just think Germany in the 30's, go back to the Catholic Church (and Rome before that). Galileo was almost executed, not for being correct in his observations about celestial bodies, but for the "crime" of telling folks about them in a way that the church felt threatened by. I'm sure others can provide examples of abuse of power from any institution in any era.

Seems to me the government already has more power than I want it to have. In my mind, the inclusion of information on folks that aren't charged with a crime is too easy to abuse. And there is no doubt it will be abused. It's human nature.

WHEEEEE!!

[rawtatoor]

Is everyone enjoying the ride down the slippery slope?

Re:WHEEEEE!!

[Dunbal]

Is everyone enjoying the ride down the slippery slope?

      I love it. Especially because I don't live in the US. Look on the bright side, when we hit the bottom, there will be nowhere left to go but up again...

Re:WHEEEEE!!

[Tsagadai]

If only that were true. Take a visit to Singapore. Their government hit dictatorships bottom a while ago and altough it's going up (economy wise) society is still finding new lows and methods of control.

good thoughts ..

[cablecar]

nice one .. Edelstahltreppen http://www.net-tec-online.de/edelstahl/edelstahltr eppen.html

Sounds good, but...

[coleopterana]

I've recently read a lot of articles about people being screwed in various ways because crimes they either didn't commit or crimes that were supposed to be expunged from their records were never correctly removed, and the errors are perpetuated in such databases that are lucky to be checked annually. People reported being denied promotions, jobs at all, being fired, not qualifying for loans or mortgages--the works. I think we should focus on some QA before we leap to what will surely become an error-ridden and ungainly system, let alone the security issues.

From Kafkaesque to Orwellian

[Anonymous Coward]

Give the feds the ability to fingerprint you just for being in custody (never charged) and we can get this database nice and fat real quick.

Just another outcome when we have so much support for federalism coming from the Republicans and Democrats.

Death to America! Long live the sham republic!

Re:From Kafkaesque to Orwellian

[Artifakt]

Somewhere in the process for a secret or above security clearance you automatically get fingerprinted (or it worked that way back when I first got one). I needed cleared pronto, before I even reported to unspecified location. I remember getting it done at a local police department, who transmitted the results to the DOD. There was a small boy there, with his mother. He was very curious to see what the policeman was doing with my digits, until his mom said "Get away from there Jimmy, that's a BAD man!". The cop was nice enough to set her straight as soon as we both stopped laughing, but my prints are filed, not just with DOD, but a copy is doubtless retained by unspecified local PD. Knowing both some competent police and some real Barney Fifes, I routinely expect to to be at a traffic stop someday and have some deputy who doesn't understand didley over-react and throw down on me just upon learning my prints are on permanent file. What's funny when a civilian does it can be downright tragic when an armed law enforcement officer makes the same assumption.

Re:From Kafkaesque to Orwellian

[Artifakt]

Hate to reply to my own post, but obviously, that should be "department, which transmitted...". I'm profoundly sorry.

Law Enforcement Data Sharing

[rlp]

I worked on a law enforcement data sharing effort in Ohio. Most police departments are islands of automation. They'll have a 911 system and usually an integrated departmental records management system. Often they will have separate access to a very limited state / federal system. Very rarely will they tie in with neighboring local agencies.

Traffic stops are are dangerous stressful moments for police officers. They don't know if they are stopping Joe Citizen, or someone who just committed armed robbery. If an individual is wanted in the next town, usually that information will not be available.

The Ohio system (OLLEISN) was meant to address this on an statewide basis and got off to a good start. Data is exchanged using an XML standard (Global Justice XML Data Model) developed at Georgia Tech for the DOJ. Content consists of adult criminal records and is tightly controlled.

If the DOJ follows this model for Federal data and does a good job of implementation - I see this as a very positive development.

Re:Law Enforcement Data Sharing

[DutchSter]

As a part-time law enforcement officer in Ohio, I have to agree that the Ohio system is done pretty well. Absolutely everything is logged and routinely monitored. Try talking to any of your good cop buddies to see if they'll run a plate for you. Most of them will say "oh hell no!" and run as fast as they can. We had an officer get fired two years ago for abusing the LEADS system. He was running plates "on the side" for some friends of his. All went well until one day he ran the plate of someone wanted for assault. Naturally the log analyzer program went nuts when it found that one of our officers ran the plate of a wanted individual, but we had no corresponding arrest record. So it went onto the exception report and was reviewed by the Captain a few days later. Turns out he'd only run five or six plates as favors, but the Chief asked for his badge and gun then and there in exchange for not shipping the case to the prosecutor. After the guy was walked out the door, the Chief sent the case to the prosecutor anyway.

Of course, the problem with accountability being at this level is that without further review up above, local corruption could skate right by. I do, however, remember of the town of New Rome (when it still existed) losing access to the state LEADS system for something like 90 days when someone claimed that he was being harassed by the local police and it was discovered that the mayor was having the police chief look up the records of people he didn't like and do things like put BOLOs (Be on the lookout) on them so they'd get stopped for no reason any time another officer ran their plates.

Re:Law Enforcement Data Sharing

[Anonymous Coward]

I do, however, remember of the town of New Rome (when it still existed) losing access to the state LEADS system for something like 90 days when someone claimed that he was being harassed by the local police and it was discovered that the mayor was having the police chief look up the records of people he didn't like and do things like put BOLOs (Be on the lookout) on them so they'd get stopped for no reason any time another officer ran their plates.

I have a former friend whose father was the mayor of the hick town of Cornelius, Oregon. The father took a dislike to a local hardware store owner, so he had the local cops go out and paint a huge red zone in front of the guy's store so patrons could not park close to their destination.

Bill Gates' piracy confession

[giafly]

WSJ: You watch physics lectures and Harlem Globetrotters [on YouTube]?
Gates: This social-networking thing takes you to crazy places.
WSJ: But those were stolen, correct?
Gates: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for. So yes.
Tue, 06/20/2006

As another poster has said, the problem with this database is that even the most honest among us commit some crimes so it makes it easier for the police to arrest anyone. Prison space is finite so in practice they arrest the people they don't like, which could be you. It certainly won't be billionaires.

You'd better not shout, ...

[Linnen]

You'd better not cry,
You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why...

Santa Claus sold his naughty/nice database to the DOJ.

Re:You'd better not shout, ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Santa,

Please send me your list of bad girls.

Nothing to see here - move on!

[blanchae]

Regardless if it is a good idea or not, it would mostly likely require laws to be passed in every state and municipal to allow the integration of the systems. Each system is essentially incapatible and then there would be the lobbying by the manufacturers to determine which system should be used and how to integrate. Then money would have to be made available to upgrade the existing systems to integrate into the national ones. The fighting over where this money is going to come from and who's going to pay will commence. After many decades of lawyers and SNAFU, nothing will happen except huge billion dollar bills to the taxpayers for a system that doesn't work.

We can see this process already ongoing with the integration of emergency communications systems which was identified as a problem and acted on in the early 90s where police, fire, ambulance, hospitals and the military communications systems failed because they are incompatible. A decade later, the same problem existed with hurricane Katrina. Where's the integration? - stuck in Washington bogged down in lobbying and lawyers: the Great American way!

Re:Nothing to see here - move on!

[prisoner]

The passing the laws part is easy. The Feds will do what they always do: "Participation is optional but if you don't participate you don't get your (insert program name here) grant." I think the 55mph law was passed in this fashion.

As to the cost, that's a laugh. There might be a block grant available but it won't cover the costs of complying with Uncle Sam's demands. The Feds do this act all the time. Take a look at ESL, no child left behind,etc ,etc, etc.

Re:Nothing to see here - move on!

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's the integration?

It's in the fucking no-fly list. Works great, especially if you've done nothing wrong.

Doubt it? Name one person reported in the media who has acually been rightly detained for being on the list. There ain't any. And don't give me that tired old shit abot how revealing such names would "disclose operational details of the system."

Why "OneDOJ" instead of "One DOJ"

[PatPending]

What's up with the ridiculous use of Apple-like names? (E.g., "MacPaint," "iPOD," etc.) Is the DOJ now being run by 20-something*** year old people who think it's _essential_ to do this? ***They must be 20-somethings; an old fart like me would have used "Omni" instead of "One."

Re:Why "OneDOJ" instead of "One DOJ"

[laffer1]

Well I think its safe to say that people older than 20 something have used that style of naming convention. You already mentioned MacPaint which isn't shipped on modern Macs. Then we have NetBSD and FreeBSD. Its iPod which doesn't start with a capital letter.

In the case of the BSDs, I am 27 and those two projects were started before I owned my first PC. As for the Omni argument, my mother never would have thought of that. She would have called it something like Bad Guy Search or possibly Yahoo for criminals.

Re:Why "OneDOJ" instead of "One DOJ"

[PatPending]

Well, if Apple didn't start this naming convention with software such as: MacPaint, MacDraw, and etc., who did? For instance, was it originally "VisiCalc" or "Visicalc?"

C'mon, /.'ers, I really want to know: what was the first software product to take two words and make them into one, using mixed letter case?

Re:Why "OneDOJ" instead of "One DOJ"

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if Apple didn't start this naming convention with software such as: MacPaint, MacDraw, and etc., who did? For instance, was it originally "VisiCalc" or "Visicalc?"

C'mon, /.'ers, I really want to know: what was the first software product to take two words and make them into one, using mixed letter case?

From http://www.bricklin.com/visicalc.htm -- Dan Bricklin's Web Site: www.bricklin.com
-----
VisiCalc: Information from its creators, Dan Bricklin and Bob Frankston
If you're looking for material about VisiCalc, this is the place!
-----

Also see WordPerfect, PerfectCalc, PerfectWrite, etc. The latter two came with a Kaypro computer I once worked on.

Mmmmmm, CPM.

Most folks assume this DB already exists.

[jrwilk01]

At least most folks that watch CSI and other crime programs. Isn't it cool how TV cops can search and cross-reference all crime databases instantly, from one user interface?

The real world isn't like that. Local law enforcement agencies don't talk to each other. People with arrest warrants go in and out of jail in other jurisdictions, and no one notices.

Security

[aarenz]

If the DOJ can secure it so that only valid law enforcement users can access the system, it will be fine. I am sure that most of the data that is in the system is not admissable in court, so they would have to track down the real evidence and not be able to use invalid data that was put into a database of information. It may point the finger at someone, but they will not be convicted based on wrong information in a DOJ file.

Re:Security

[mandelbr0t]

Like secure enough to prevent Microsoft from embedding their agents in the DOJ and overturning the antitrust suit?

Oh wait...

mandelbr0t

Re:Security

[jbdigriz]

That's right, citizen, think them happy thoughts.

I could see part of your point if all leo's were professional outfits like the one the cop from Ohio above mentioned. The sad truth of the matter is, governments, government agencies, and even courts across this land are absolutely rife with corruption. Not so ironically, it is the Federal government that is responsible for this. Grist for another mill, except to note, just as an example, the DOJ's own DEA and it's War on Some Drugs, have directly undermined a wide variety of public and private institions both in the US and abroad and generated a whole new sophisticated and well-heeled class of criminals, slowly being absorbed into the mainstream of respectability and government contracting.

Under such circumstances it is all too common, particularly in local jurisdictions, to see legal niceties such as those against admitting uncorroborated hearsay, sheep speculation, unsupported assertions, and known false evidence. I used to be a babe in the woods like you seem to be about these matters. Believe me, my eyes have been opened. I know better now. Anybody can get screwed over, particularly the innocent. I think that covers the other part of your point.

Finally, some laws are just so immoral or unjust, it's obvious to any rational person they were intended to be broken. Follow the money, etc., Professional LEO's should get political and lobby against them, or hand in their badges. In the meantime, just don't fucking get caught.

Have a nice day, Citizen.

what will this be used for ..

[rs232]

In this series Edward Woodward gets his 'Union' card confiscated (declared a non-citizen) and almost starves to death as he can't access any of the basic services necessary for survival.

[fiction]

"The population is now governed by the tyrannical Home Office Public Control Department (PCD), who have done away with the rights of the individual and maintain control through ID cards, rationing and electronic surveillance"

"the Great Britain .. we see portrayed in this series .. depicts a distinct "ruling class" and an "under-class" consisting mostly of "non-citizens" as they are called. It is virtually impossible to do anything "anonymously", and society is, to all intents and purposes cashless .. Transactional anonymity is only possible if one is able to pay with gold .. Not surprisingly, something of a black market and underground movement develops"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075469/

[reality]

Right now if in some officials opinion you may have had knowlege of the comissioning of a crime or supplied a service that aided in the commision of a crime, you can have your passport confiscated, be prevented travel to other regions of the UK and banned from using financial services - all without the bother of a trial, in other words declared a non-citizen.

Re:what will this be used for ..

[Anonymous Coward]

you can have your passport confiscated, be prevented travel to other regions of the UK and banned from using financial services

      Good thing I have 3 passports... oops?

Torrent

[Duncan3]

URL? :)

The problems, in a nutshell

[bagofbeans]

1. The data can't be corrected by the 'suspect'
2. The data is subject to abuse, partly because it will be so easy to access. Many people can be cowed into opening up when the interrogator shows a little unexpected history on a person, because many people feel guilty about something. For example, "Does your wife know you surf porn channels?" would open up a lot of men...
3. Law enforcement tend to regard legitimate individual political protests as quasi-illegal, un-American activity, and so any personal protest activity monitored by FBI would count against you. It's only called lobbying if you are paid to do it.
4. The data will passed to companies and other countries, treated as accurate, and used against you. This is not a forecast; it's in the plan already. So you won't get that job because your potential boss thinks you are a Democrat...

Re:The problems, in a nutshell

[Bryansix]

Please cite sources for any of this information. Specifically point 4!

Re:The problems, in a nutshell

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Citation for point 4:

http://www.slate.com/id/2106714/

Re:The problems, in a nutshell

[Anonymous Coward]

That has nothing to do with whether or not the information in this database will be shared with people outside law enforcement. More importantly, this guy didn't dig around to find out who his employees were voting for. She had is right on her bumper sticker. She gave up her privacy over her voting habits by putting that sticker on her car. In the Bosses eyes she might as well had been admitting to supporting Kim Jung-Il. Think about that for a second. Do you want someone working for you who admits to supporting a dictator who makes his country suffer for his own hubris? A lot of people feel the same way about John Kerry. They feel like he stabbed this country in the back when he got back from Vietnam and testified falsely about atrocities that his own fellow soldiers supposedly committed. I'm not defending the Bosses right to fire this woman but I'm just explaining where he was coming from. Once again this has nothing to do with what OneDOJ database at all. It's a complete diversionary tangent with little to no value to your argument.

And yet, you feel obliged to spew all your shit, even if it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. Well, you've had your say, haven't you, you meretricious little bastard.

Re:The problems, in a nutshell

[Bryansix]

Meretricious huh? I had to look that up. I like that.

Perhaps you got the government you deserve

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the SDS and SWP were defenders of the limited federal government and sovereignty of the individual enshrined in the constitution.

Oversight?

[Gunfighter]

Who's watching the watchers in this case? Does this fall under some sort of bureaucrat-stuffed intelligence oversight committee on Capitol Hill?

Some Concerns and Questions

[martyb]

Sigh. I don't know where to begin.

First off, I understand there is some not insignificant value to this idea. The concept of making it easier for law enforcement to gather already available information on a suspect is quite laudable. It bothers me when I hear of how a suspect in a "major investigation" was actually picked up on an unrelated offense, and let go, because the arresting officers were unaware of the other outstandings on the person. It would be nice if we could stop this from happening. In fact, I'm sure many lives could be saved. If I had a loved one who was murdered, and then found out that law enforcement had actually captured the suspect beforehand, AND LET HIM GO, you can bet I'd be outraged. But is this proposal the right way to go about it? What is the REAL COST to you and to me. Not just in dollars and cents, but also in our freedoms as citizens.

My concern is more with the implications and implementations of this concept, and how easily it can be abused.

Data Quality: People have been known to not give their correct name to the police. Some people have used multiple names (aliases, AKA, etc.) Further, given that even touch-typists will occasionally make typographical errors (and not everyone is a touch-typist, either), I can forsee a not-insignificant amount of "bad" data finding its way into the system. Someone with a name similar to mine commits an offense, but gets recorded UNDER MY NAME. See: false-positives (Type I error) and flase-negatives (Type II error) here: Type I and type II errors.

• They may not find this person when they go looking for his info - because it's NOT under his name.
• They might find this person's offense(s) should they go looking under my name - say, for a minor traffic offense.

Feed the Database: If it's so benign, I want to see a requirement that they seed the database with information on EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICIAL. President of the USA, every senator, representative, judge, police officer, sheriff, District Attorney, etc. If your wage is paid by our taxes, then your info gets loaded into their system automatically. If there is an uproar about doing this for THEM, then maybe they should not be doing it to US. Got to stamp out any possible corruption, yanno? Besides, if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. Right?

Log EVERY access: CRUD - Create, Read, Update, Delete. Storage is cheap. Log EVERY SINGLE time the data is accessed complete with the date, time, source IP, accessor's name (See the Feed the Database, above, what was requested, etc. If what you are doing with the database is on the up-and-up, then you have nothing to hide. Log it.

Prosecute Abuse of the System: Run analyses every single day to seek out abuse of the system. And Prosecute Them. Publicize The Prosecutions. Enter the prosecutions into the system. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Data Validation and Correction: It's going to happen. Some data is going to be inaccurate. (Consider the problems that exist with the accuracy of people's credit reports. And the difficulties, effort, and cost involved in getting those mistakes rectified.) How can I:

1. Get access to the information they have on me?
2. Contest its accuracy?
3. Ensure corrections are applied?

Looking ahead: Data storage costs are coming down. Some localities have ever-present video cameras recording all activity in their purview. I can imagine a time when advanced techniques exist to go searching through these archives looking for, extracting, and logging the identities and activities of all within their field of view (face recognition, scene analyses, cell phone GPS, etc.) Combine all these streams and extracts into a central DB and one can easily go trolling for perps.

So, in short, I can see some good intentions behind this. Quite laudable in fact. But, I am NOT convinced this is a good idea, never mind whether or not they can come up with a good implementation.

Far more insidious...

[gwayne]

is the ability for a system like this to create new classes of crimes and criminals out of normal law-abiding people. Just think--DA's around the country are always looking to increase their conviction rates, so they start mining data and looking for trends. The next thing you know, there are new laws on the books restricting freedoms, including

• petty vices
• how you dress (think hijab)
• where you shop
• what you wrote in your blog
• what you think
• who you associate with professionally and personally
• who you voted for last election

Each of these areas has been encroached upon by our new Socialist-Bush government.

I for one, DO NOT welcome our new socialist overlords!

Re:Far more insidious...

[Jerry Rivers]

"...Socialist-Bush government."

Socialist? Don't you mean right-wing and bordering on fascist? There is very little about this republican administration that is close socialism, unless you consider democracy socialism. If that's the case then what is it, besides the obvious privacy concerns, that you are arguing for/against?

Re:Far more insidious...

[justasecond]

Let's see...which side of the aisle would you associate with a government that has had the biggest increase in domestic spending since Johnson, massive new social programs, huge increase in regulatory power over private business, gigantic deficit spending, etc.? As much as you might hate Bush, you need to admit to your self that his actions (bar the idiotic praying-in-public-schools, ban abortion nonsense) have all the hallmarks of left-winger politics.

Throw in the stifling of free speech (a fav. of all left-wing types from PC campus nazis to Stalin, Pol Pot, Noriega, Mao, Kim, etc.) and you've got a good candidate for a socialist's Man of the Year award.

You just call him "fascist" because by calling him a socialist you're peeing in your own pool.

Re:Far more insidious...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you call him a "socialist" because it's easier to hate him that way. Can't bring yourself to admit that right-wing is, oh yeah. F*$&%G WRONG.

What's good for the goose is good for you, you asshole.

Re:Far more insidious...

[gwayne]

If I remember correctly from government classes way back when, fascism and socialism aren't that far apart on the political spectrum when you think of it as a continuum.

Re:Far more insidious...

[justasecond]

All of slashdot bows before the power of your logic.

Re:Far more insidious...

[Jerry Rivers]

"If I remember correctly from government classes way back when, fascism and socialism aren't that far apart on the political spectrum when you think of it as a continuum."

Well, the OP's foggy assertions notwithstanding, socialism and fascism are different ends of the political spectrum, but you are right that communism and fascism can both be authoritarian or even totalitarian (something I have a feeling the OP would approve of because he wouldn't actually realize it was happening).

Cardinal Richelieu quote

[alexandreracine]

"follow someone long enough and he's bound to commit a traffic violation"

"Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre."

* Translation: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

And that was before 1642.

My Big Brother is a Police Officer

[Thomas the Doubter]

My brother is a police officer, and I am pretty sure that he can get me the information I need to know about my rivals at work. There is this one guy whom I would love to get the goods on. Let's see, maybe if my brother won't get me the info, maybe one of our friends on the force - maybe if I give him that 1973 Dodge Dart in my garage that he has always wanted. Or my other friend who will probably just want cash.
Thomas

Re:Banks and Cops

[mpapet]

Because cops have guns, and can break into your house in the middle of the night and shoot you. Banks don't do that.

I would argue banks have similar powers though. For example, the bank can and will adjust your balance due to their claiming an accounting error. The burden is on me to prove their corrections are wrong. My wife photocopies the checks she deposits because she got burned by the bank on this one repeatedly. It's not literal life and death, but it's almost as important. Money is one of the very few things that everyone in the industrialized world measures out to the hundreth decimal point. How many things can you say the same about?

If the Feds say they want one criminal DB to rule them all then I get nervous. Why? Abuse is rampant despite whatever ethical standard or legal penalty present.

MOD PARENT UP

[NaCh0]

I lol'd at his comment.

For those who don't know

SDS = Students for a Democratic Society

SWP = Socialist Workers Party

Now you see why his limited federal government and individual freedom comment was funny.

9/11

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

On the flip side, one of the 9/11 hijackers was arrested 2 days earlier for doing 90 mph in a 65 mph zone.

Had the cop known he was on the government's terror list, 3000 people would still be alive and the World Trade Center would still be standing.

Re:9/11

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize they probably wouldn't have even gotten around to talking to him by the time the attacks went down, right?

"If you are not guilty, you have nothing to fear"

[fkx]

These are the words and the thinking behind them that will destroy our society.

Re:Banks and Cops

[Moofie]

It takes a pretty long causal chain to have an accounting error result in death by hydrostatic shock. I'm not saying that bank errors aren't a big deal, I'm saying that they're usually not fatal.

"If the Feds say they want one criminal DB to rule them all then I get nervous."

On that, we are in complete and total agreement.

In response to your post

[Bryansix]

Buahahahaahah! You have to be kidding me! I understand that these freedoms are encroached upon by other government but not in the US. Yes the people should lookout for this kind of crap and put a stop to it. However it is one giant leap of logic to say that this system will have any effect on the freedoms you enjoy currently. In fact you proved nothing in your post except that you have a wild imagination.

About Space

[PopeRatzo]

Fortunately, it seems that the pro-Tyranny Republican pseudo-conservativism preached by likes of Hannity, Limbaugh et al hit a high-water mark a few years ago and is now ebbing rapidly. And none too soon. And the renewed interest in politics among regular working people that the years of the Right Wing Nutjobs started is only going to help the resurgent Left in the US as regular working Americans realize just how badly they're getting beaten, while pasty MBAs on Wall Street, rewarded with multi-million dollar bonuses for cutting jobs, spend their huge windfall on AMGs and cosmetic surgery. When middle-working-class folk realize what a bill of goods all these shiny-suit snake-oil salesmen have sold them, the 2006 gains of the Democratic Party (despite the huge whole they were in after the redistricting and rules changes) will be only the beginning. The problem is, the reptiles like Alberto Gonzales who work for George (The Decider) Bush have been working overtime establishing precedent for all sorts of illegal behaviour by our government. Just read a few hundred of the over-700 signing statements that have been amended to bills by our Executive, which are the legal equivalent of having your fingers crossed behind your back. And only about 10% of the laws to which these "signing statements" attach have anything to do with national security. No, it's just about setting up a precedent for consolidating power in the hands of the guy at the top. And despite it's cute WebII name, "OneDOJ" is just another indication that our government has forgotten who's supposed to be in charge, and one more reason to keep as much of your real life off the grid as possible. Personally, I'd rather take my chances with the terrorists.

One thing rarely mentioned on these large db's

[homeslice3]

is the accuracy of them and how they deal with individual state laws regarding protection and destruction of data. I personally have no problem with these databases - ALL of the information in them are in the public record - except case information that is sealed by a judge.

One issue of concern would be and example where I get busted at 17 for a petty crime - do my probation and some community service and have my record expunged. As far as the State is concerned, my record is now clean and the arrest shouldn't appear anywhere. The state system, by law, has to actually destroy both the paper record of the case and any data trails in the local case management systems.

What doesn't happen, I'm afraid, is when the FBI or Justice department grabs data via an exchange - it's not cleaning up or even being able to know about the expunged action - they just grab whatever they get and add it to the pile of stuff they transform - it's just has an old record of a closed or completed case.

Another issue is sealed cases - or cases that have been exchanged with these databases, THEN sealed at a later date, or has information about minors in it, or financial data in it (i.e. a divorce case might have bank records, ssn's and so forth). The intent of adding notes and other stuff to a docket for example is to help the judge, and any other official manage the case - what's not considered is the downstream effect of this (ie the document is scanned and it's added as a blob to the case record, then exchanged with a foreign system.

I see a big backlash coming, much like medical records and privacy in the legal realm - I agree that giving officers in the field all the data they need is critical, but there needs to be updates to rules and regs about how this stuff is used and what exactly can be exchanged now that the data won't merely live in the original systems and safeguarded by disinterested parties (the nerds who manage the statewide court systems) vs those who have a financial or other reason to be interested in the data.

Minnesota tried this

[Anonymous Coward]

Minnesota had a system like this. Every time the police interacted with anyone, they put the interaction into the Multiple Jurisdiction Network Organization so they could track suspects, witnesses, etc. The system was run by the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association. It did not have an legislative authorization. It had been in use for years before it was disclosed to the public.

Once the system became public, congress held hearings on it. During one committee hearing it was revealed that one of the committee members was in the system as a suspect. A neighbor had called in to complain about where she parked her car. The system was shut down within days of that hearing.

Now three years later the state is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build a replacement system.

It is worth noting Minnesota has not seen any appreciable difference in crime since the system was shut down.

Godwin's Law?

[LuYu]

Godwin was a Nazi! ;)

Maybe we're being too paranoid?

[tech10171968]

After all, there is this little thing called the NCIC (http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/is/ncic.htm ) that has already been in use by Law Enforcement for decades now. Everytime you've been pulled over by a cop and asked for your drivers' license (and/or other ID), what do you think he's doing when he takes them back to his vehicle? He's running your name through the NCIC and checking for any warrants. All of the paranoia and "Big Brother" talk may very well be much ado about nothing; when a criminal is caught and processed the government collects and therefore already possesses a lot of this information, and none of it is a big secret at that point.

What I find interesting is that...

[WindBourne]

this is happening as our WWII vets die off. They have been adamant about fighting the gov and preventing them from being what they saw back then. Now, our current leaders have never put their life on the line for saving our country and they have not seen what a bad gov can do. It shows how little they value our freedom, while at the same time invading other countries and speaking of democracy.

Already In Canada

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out http://www.cpic-cipc.ca/English/index.cfm

The Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) was created in 1966 to provide tools to assist the police community in combatting crime. It was approved by Treasury Board in 1967 as a computerized information system to provide all Canadian law enforcement agencies with information on crimes and criminals. CPIC is operated by the RCMP under the stewardship of National Police Services, on behalf of the Canadian law enforcement community.

The public can use this site to help keep their neighbourhoods safe by checking and reporting suspicious vehicles. Use the Search button to enter our Stolen Vehicle & Bicycle page. Here you can enter licence plates, VIN numbers, or serial numbers to verify for stolen vehicles or bicycles.

Re:Maybe we're not being paranoid enough?

[FredMenace]

If they have that, why do they need this new system? In fact, if the primary concern is stopping/releasing someone on a minor infringement that is wanted elsewhere for something more serious, isn't that already covered by the NCIC?

So, contrary to your argument, that makes this new system so much worse. Knowing about the NCIC only makes me MORE paranoid about OneDOJ.