Slashdot Mirror
Navy Database Tracks Civilians' Parking Tickets, Fender-Benders
schwit1 (797399) writes with this excerpt from the Washington Examiner: "A parking ticket, traffic citation or involvement in a minor fender-bender are enough to get a person's name and other personal information logged into a massive, obscure federal database run by the U.S. military.
The Law Enforcement Information Exchange, or LinX, has already amassed 506.3 million law enforcement records ranging from criminal histories and arrest reports to field information cards filled out by cops on the beat even when no crime has occurred."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Isn't this all public record, anyway? It sounds like the Navy wants to know if they'll be helping anyone escape justice by moving ships around.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
This is data that has been available, sounds like they are just doing a better job of networking said data. This should be viewed as a good thing, when law enforcement has access to information it can help solve crimes easier. Information is king. People are so paranoid of a police state, this is not indicative of that. This is indicative of intelligent networking and data sharing.
There is a principle in law (but not in all jurisdictions) that one can only keep personal information about one's customers during the time one is doing business with them. Libraries, one of the original examples, only keep "who has book X" records until the book is returned.
What business relationship does the Navy have with random people, and what are they doing with copies of their parking tickets? Personal information, and especially personally identifying information should be closely held. Therefor it should not be collected by businesses, police or the military except where the law specifically allows.
To make it a little harsher, is not possession of someone else's social security number in the U.S. prima facie evidence of an attempt to impersonate them? Of "identity theft"?
davecb@spamcop.net
...doing dumb fucking things since inception.
There is a principle in law (but not in all jurisdictions) that one can only keep personal information about one's customers during the time one is doing business with them.
That's nice. Talk to me when it is a legal statute and a constitutional ammendment.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The problem is not the database, the problem is who's running it. The military has zero business spying on civilians. The CiA doesn't like the competition.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Naval bases must be protected from bad, or accident prone drivers! National security depends on it. /sarcasm
If the Navy is involved in monitoring of weapons and explosive smuggling and theft the story starts to make sense, but the ATF and ICE are still the ones making the arrests at least in the case of civilian offenders.
When I enlisted in '96, I was asked why I didn't inform anyone that I was pulled over in 1995. I was questioned as to why I was pulled over and what happened. I didn't think anything of it.
I was not issued any citation for being pulled over as it was a case of mistaken identity. Still, the Navy had a record of it.
Maybe they just wanted a database that was more accurate than the riffraff online investigation sites offer, it is public record anyway.
It's the law, you just don't live in the right place (;-))
Seriously, though, it's consistent with the U.S. constitution's protection of privacy, and is claimed to be the law in some states. It wasn't Minnesota law back when I lived in Minneapolis, but that was a while ago ...
davecb@spamcop.net
Most of it is public information, but what is egregious is that some of it, including a name on a police report (when you weren't even charged w/ a crime, let alone convicted) is enough to get a Red Flag.
**that's the problem**
It's not just a database of criminal convictions...it's any name every connected to any crime anywhere that they can scan & put in their database...
Two Rules for understanding INFOSEC news:
1. Expect officials to want to have the ability to access anything.
2. Identify the appropriate supervisory agency. Every part of the US government has a boss...if you want to understand *why* look at who is setting the policy, and under what administration the policy originated.
Rule 1 can help avoid 1,000s of pointless trolling discussions b/c it is logical if you understand networking or telecommunications. Ask yourself, "Is there any data or message that I would *never* want authorities to have access to no matter what, warrants, court orders, nothing?" That can't be.
Which of course logically leads us to Rule 2
Rule 2 answers the question "Who decides what data they have access to and under what circumstances can they access it?"
These two rules cannot **guarantee** constructive discussion...but IMHO it will surely help
Thank you Dave Raggett
What's apparent is all this leads to the fact that all citizens are enemy's of our own nation! How did we go from We The People to suspects... The experiment in freedom is over! We are absolutely not free any longer, sad... I'm glad my two WW2 vet grandfathers dident live to see it!
LiNX is one of a number of data sharing systems in use today. It works with local law enforcement agencies to warehouse data across different jurisdictions so that they can see each other's data. What's strange is it's under the Navy. The FBI runs another system called the National Data Exhange (n-DEx) which does the same thing but more generally. LiNX is used more for port cities. Commercial vendors like IBM provide their CopLink product to states and local jurisdictions to share data as well (see MODEX project in state of Colorado). Some states like Ohio have their statewide data sharing system that serves to aggregate data for NDEX. These are all systems operated by state/federal law enforcement agnecies that capture when you've done something wrong. This is different from the surveillance activities of the NSA that capture information indiscriminately.
LiNX is one of a number of data sharing systems in use today. It works with local law enforcement agencies to warehouse data across different jurisdictions so that they can see each other's data. What's strange is it's under the Navy. The FBI runs another system called the National Data Exhange (n-DEx) which does the same thing but more generally. LiNX is used more for port cities whereas FBI is much more broad. Commercial vendors like IBM provide their CopLink product to states and local jurisdictions to share data as well (see MODEX project in state of Colorado). Some states like Ohio have their own statewide data sharing system that serves to aggregate data for NDEX. These are all systems operated by state/federal law enforcement agnecies that capture when you've done something wrong. This is different from the surveillance activities of the NSA that capture information indiscriminately.
Is that you?
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
The Navu has relationships with the ruling Ascendacy/Elite, and is amassing information on citizens in case the ruling class might ever have need of it.
May the Maths Be with you!
And not a care in the world.
FU ha ha :-D
See all those US 'news' stories about famous people going down for 'faults' in their personal behaviour. Why exactly do you think the mass media focuses so much time and energy ruining the lives of certain famous people? You betas are told by your masters that you betas get the forms of journalism you betas choose to read, and being betas you actually believe this laughable lie. Many betas LOVE to feel guilty, and indulge in self-hate, so a 'blame yourself' ploy is perfect.
The NSA, now without a doubt, collects every possible piece of information about every possible individual. Every alpha understands EXACTLY why such a strategy is useful to evil alphas. But betas must imagine ANY explanation but the true one.
"why would they waste their time spying on little me" is the chant betas are taught from the earliest age. And for a beta living in the USA, where betas are told (with a large degree of truth) that anyone might make it big in America, the adherence to this laughable lie is most puzzling.
The NUMBER ONE function of the NSA is to gain intelligence that can be used to coerce people. Coercion is the number one method by the people in power to maintain and magnify their power. In the case like Libya and Syria, coercion means Team Obama having targets for 'conversion' (key people in those nations 'persuaded to work on behalf of America) promised significant rewards AND shown video of previous targets who FAILED to co-operate watching as members of their family are tortured to death before their eyes, before they themselves are murdered.
Such 'persuasion' cannot be used in the USA against American 'targets'. When someone like Obama needs, for instance, to persuade certain people to support one of his new wars, it is going to require proving to the target that Obama's people have access to significant reputation damaging material. And this material is collect in bulk by the NSA.
US Naval Intelligence, for strictly historical reasons, was one of the first US departments to engage in large scale activities that later became, more commonly, the purview of the NSA.
She's an officer of Parliament, and doesn't answer to the party in power*.
--dave
[* Which causes parties in power to worry about being called out near an election. Note the current push to geld theenforcement branch of Elections Canada, after they publicly chastized the party in power breaking the funding law]
davecb@spamcop.net
Silly me. NSA must mean Navel Scrutiny Authority. They're just a bunch of Buddhist monks. Nothing to see here - move along, friend.
I think the areas involved tells a story of its own. Check out the map of participants at the bottom.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
There is a principle in law (but not in all jurisdictions) that one can only keep personal information about one's customers during the time one is doing business with them. Libraries, one of the original examples, only keep "who has book X" records until the book is returned.
What business relationship does the Navy have with random people, and what are they doing with copies of their parking tickets? Personal information, and especially personally identifying information should be closely held. Therefor it should not be collected by businesses, police or the military except where the law specifically allows.
To make it a little harsher, is not possession of someone else's social security number in the U.S. prima facie evidence of an attempt to impersonate them? Of "identity theft"?
None of which applies to a federal law enforcement agency, which NCIS is.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
"Maybe they just wanted a database that was more accurate than the riffraff online investigation sites offer, it is public record anyway."
No, it isn't. Certainly not all of it, anyway.
In my state, even police are required to log a reason for looking up a license plate. Most data about the public is not a matter of public record.
Having said that: some things are, of course. The fact that someone has been arrested is temporarily public record, so that you can see whether your boyfriend needs to get bailed out again when he doesn't show up for a day. And so on. And conviction records are public. But not all arrest records remain public because not everyone who is arrested is convicted... it's a great way to discriminate against innocent people.
I think -- but I am not sure -- that convictions for traffic violations are also public. Which includes guilty pleas.
Naval bases must be protected from bad, or accident prone drivers!
Since its existence is to "protect" something, I guess this database of everything is better than what the German Stasi used to keep.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Participating agencies must feed their information into the federal data warehouse and electronically update it daily in return for access.
Doesn't sound like anyone I'd trust.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
The government is not a business. It has different rights then businesses. For example, a business can get away with all kinds of discrimination that a governmental unit could not -- prayer at meetings, mandatory hours on Saturday, etc. The government can't do those things. OTOH the government can arrest you as long as they file the right paperwork (mostly warrants).
Which means that unless there's a specific Constitutional clause, or Congressional statute on data retention in play here the Navy can keep whatever data it wants.
It probably should have some statute restricting the time it keeps info on some of this stuff, but if that law hasn't already been passed then it isn't currently in effect.
This is nothing new - I have written about it my responses for years. I worked for a company that developed a system that was being considered by Homeland Security when I left in 2009.
In the early 2ks, there were a multitude of records management systems in use by public safety. Our system was designed for small and medium size departments- large cities were not our forte.
There was a lot of data and no way to correlate it among departments in the same counties, let alone state or federal levels. The system we devised worked seemlessly with our customer's and it allowed them to decide what information they desired to share. And, more importantly, they could just as easily shutdown that access. We adapted our system to be able to pull dta from other vendor systems. And, it was noticed. Every incident, ticket, arrest was instantly searchable...from a national level in under seven seconds. It didn't use links.
Our system wasn't the first, just one that worked...welll..really well. States were receiving grants from the Feds and a lot was funneled into academic research. GJXDM and subsequent NIEM models were built. The FBI also was looking at a system of their own design.
States such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, PA, NJ and others all had systems...they just werent unified. I would suspect that, if the article is true and NCIS became the keepers, it was for national security reasons.
None of this is new. How many of you knew that most departments couldnt communicate with those in other counties by radio because of lack of standards? Legislation was passed to help them all be able to communicate in the interest of national security. We were in two wars and fighting an unseen one. Yet, a cop who pulled someone over in one county might not know that when the same vehicle was pulled over again...five minutes away.
Our system alerted an officer to one such routine stop. First time, there was no probable cause to search the vehicle. A few minutes later, the vehicle was pulled over again. But, the last stop was in the system and the officer approached the car with caution. Shots were fired as the officer approached and he was hit - but, not before neutralizing the threat. He had a vest and lived.
NCIC would not have had the realtime data. Our system did. I suspect the system in question is also near-realtime.
Is it spying? Perhaps at some level. But, it is a database of public safety info. Yes, your tattoos and tramp stamps are in the system if you were arrested. They help identify gangs or indicate when a rival gang is moving into a new territory, believe it or not.
Is the system here collecting more information about ongoing investigations or public information or information pertinent to law enforcement doing their duty?
And, FYI, a cop doesn't need permission to run your plates - that rule varies state by state. Often, it is a hit against a state run DMV or parking authority that gives the probable cause to run a full check. Do some abuse this power? Maybe. Most cops I knew
Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO).
Collecting, storing and distributing trivial data is a waste of time and resources.
The money could be better spent employing more Bobbies on the Beat doing real police work. The redundant databases only aids the large tech companies like IBM, Cisco, Microsoft and Oracle. It does sweet blue all for actual security and safety.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Doesn't matter if it's public record or not. When the SCOTUS determined that being put on a list - specifically the sexual offender list - "wasn't punishment" and didn't even require a judicial order, and so could be done retroactively "without" being ex post facto, and everyone cheered "oh yes, save the children", the door opened wide to finding yourself on any kind of list you can imagine, landing on it for any reason any member of the state or federal governments deem sufficient at any level. Or even as a result of mistaken identity. The only way to turn this around now is to get the question back in front of the SCOTUS and have them come to their senses (and good luck with that. It's been tried multiple times, and no one has succeeded yet.)
Even King John was subject to the law (although he certainly didn't want to be), and policing agencies in the US are subject to the constitution.
A policing agency in most jurisdictions can keep records about persons they are investigating, and about their own investigations, but generally require a court order to get anyone else's information. A military policing organization is much more restricted. For example, QR Army granted the Canadian Provost Corps unusual powers over soldiers, but because of that strongly restricted their powers over civilians outside of the field of battle.
Sharing information between security services, policing agencies and private businesses is now a subject of debate, with the Canadian government forbidding CSE (our NSA equivalent, a military establishment like NCIS) from getting information about Canadians from foreign security services without a warrant. Other jurisdictions allow differing degrees of sharing without warrants.
Failing to share has also come into question: the NSA and the FBI have earned criticism for failing to share warnings of "imminent danger".
And, just to make it more exciting, in certain* jurisdictions, police are allowed to break the law. This blows up the Magna Carta and takes us back to square one!
--dave
[* In Hawaii, police can have sex with prostitutes. Source: google news, yesterday]
davecb@spamcop.net
I'd hope the constitution still applies to them, and that they get warrants to collect information form other policing agencies. [See the other comment, too, re limited powers of the military in peacetime]
davecb@spamcop.net
I'd hope the constitution still applies to them, and that they get warrants to collect information form other policing agencies. [See the other comment, too, re limited powers of the military in peacetime]
And which Constitutional clause says the government can't retain data?
The Fourth stops certain kinds of searches, but has nothing to do with retention. "Search" in legal terms only applies to things that aren't public, so if the Navy is compiling publicly available police reports the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply.
As for their limited police powers, the limit is they can't be local/state cops unless the local cops ask for help using a set procedure. If the local cops query the Navy database then they are (by definition) asking for help. They actually can't be totally limited from law enforcement because they have Constitutional authority over their personnel and their military bases.
The bill reads like it's a lot more, but (like pretty much all broad-sounding limits on US Law Enforcement), it includes multiple innocuous-sounding "buts" that make it useless to protect anybody who isn't running a private militia enforcing white supremacy with the connivance of the local government.
US courts have held that there are privacy rights and limitations on the military, in part based on a constitutional prohibition on quartering soldiers in private homes (?!). The extent of rights to retain private data varies from state to stare, and is, IMHO, weaker than in Canada and much weaker in the EU. Thus my comment about jurisdictions not honouring rights, including ones their constitutions seem to enumerate.
The big consideration is what private data is kept. If the material is, for example, public court reports, then they're absolutely fine to retain and distribute them. If they're material seized under a court order, they can keep them until all appeals have been exhausted and the parties have been dead for some years, or for a stated period of years. If they're material that they don't have a lawful reason to retain, then they need to clean it out. If it's material they are prohibited from having (e.g., social insurance numbers of non-criminals) they they need to delete them forthwith, or be prosecuted.
The same logic applied to retaining copies of another police force's information, and applies to requests as well: if my police force wants material they need a reason to make the request, it has to be one the courts have previously approved, and they have to enforce the same limitations on other who want copies from them.
"Fishing expeditions" are strongly disapproved by the courts, and this kind of fish-factory-like collection has been treated harshly in Canada. I'll be interested in seeing what happens in the the U.S!
I'm interested in the bill, as I've not seen a trackable reference to it previously. Could you post a link?
davecb@spamcop.net
Privacy rights in US Federal law basically boil down to how much the Court is willing to BS itself because the Constitution doesn't have an Amendment directly (and clearly) intended to address the issue. This is largely because when those Amendments were written in the 1790s privacy rights weren't something that governments had figured out how to abuse, and since then the Courts have managed to stretch other Amendments to cover a lot of the gap. The Fourth is usually mentioned, but all it explicitly bans are "unreasonable searches" without warrants. The Third is almost never referred to in US law. States can be better, but they can also be worse.
The bill I'm talking about, and I thought you were talking about, is the Posse Comitatus Act. It is intended to stop the Army from enforcing US Laws. This sounds really good on paper, because who would want that? But in practice it was basically a response to the post-Civil War Republicans attempts to force the South to treat black people like people. The local authorities did not want to treat black people like people, so they resisted, and eventually they were able to a) get the troops withdrawn, and b) get a law saying that the Army could only be used in aiding law enforcement under certain very strict conditions. One of those conditions is "if the Governor asks for it." And if South Carolina has decided to join the system then it follows the Governor (or one of his lawfully appointed representatives) asked for that shit.
Note that the Posse Comitatus Act is a perfect example of why it's very complicated to protect freedom in the US. Keeping the big bad Army from arresting people sounds like a pro-freedom position, but IRL the Act's major effect was to show everyone that Reconstruction was truly over, and Southern states could no longer be forced to treat black people like people.
Subject to the constitution yes, subject to local laws on business data collection, no.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Whoops, fish factories just came up on slashdot, at http://yro.slashdot.org/story/..., including discussion of general warrants
davecb@spamcop.net
Ah, sorry, I thought there was a new law I didn't know about. Thanks! --dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Then why were they arrested, tell me that. Citizen? ...?
Citizen, named
I'm waiting.
I'm still waiting.
OK ; resisting arrest. Taze him and get him down to the station.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"