MATRIX - A Dossier for Every Person in Utah 650
jxs2151 writes: "According to the Deseret Morning News former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt signed Utah's 2.4 million residents up for a pilot program that gathers dossiers on every single man, woman and child and didn't bother to tell anyone. According to the article MATRIX -- Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange '...cross-references government records from both public and private databases, putting together a dossier on individuals for use by law enforcement.' The state's homeland security specialist dismisses concerns: '...any data gleaned for Utah's participation in MATRIX is information already available to law enforcement.'
The Utah legislature is trying to figure out how to get the state out of the program but the question is how was the Governor able to enroll the -whole state- without anyone knowing?"
when governments remove civil liberties (Score:5, Insightful)
terrorism wins
Private company? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's to prevent this company from selling the information to the highest bidder? Glad I don't live in Utah...
Re:when governments remove civil liberties (Score:5, Insightful)
So you need to be eternally vigilant against people wanting to taking away your freedom, ie YOUR GOVERNMENT.
Not some dirty old camel fscker hiding in a cave, cause all he wants to do is kill you.
Re:Private company? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes you so sure that your governor hasn't done exactly the same thing? It sounds as though the people in Utah only found out about their being entered in the program because they got a new governor. It was a big surprise even to other people in the state government. If that can happen in Utah, it can happen in your state or mine. People in other parts of the country may well have had their information in the same program and simply not know about it because their governments haven't let the cat out of the bag yet. That's the truly scary implication of the situation.
how did the Governor do it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy, because the data was being collected in the first place. The whole system of legal protection of privacy (i.e. laws that say you're not allowed to use this data for this purpose) breaks down when the trusted custodians of data shits all over the public's trust. The only way to ensure privacy is to not collect the data in the first place. Not that that's ever going to happen.
Re:Privacy concerns and John Q. American (Score:2, Insightful)
"what, dossier? well..does it make my tv go away?"
besides, most large scale protests end up with the police in riot gear forcing protesters into doing something they can get arrested for
Re:when governments remove civil liberties (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, all the poeple running for President that are against the Patriot Act and PA II have dropped out of the race, or can't sell their souls to the devil to call themselves Republicans or Democrats, and therefore have zero chance of becoming President.
Yes, being allowed to vote surely gives one more freedom to vote for the government of your choice. As long as they support the NEW WORLD ORDER, you can pick any of them you like.
but what does the future hold? (Score:2, Insightful)
WW4 decided upon moments after the 3rd ended saw every country with balistic missle capabilities repeatadly launching on the us to once and forever end the threat of a rogue nation.
--END ACT 3 PLEASE TURN OVER TAPE --
Re:Privacy concerns and John Q. American (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
However now would be a good time to decide how much data can be collected and kept for the entire life of an individual and who can do that collection.
My gut feeling is that each single piece of information needs to be fought over and an ongoing battle between the individual and other parties should begin.
Consider the fact that it would be a trivial if expensive excercise to record every single keystroke you ever type, every purchase you make, every conversation and movement you ever make on camera, every person you know, every email sent, every website visited, every late bill, every parking fine, every day off sick. All at the mercy of datamining software. The ironic thing is that the realy bad people who law enforcement want to catch probably wont be on that database because they will live on the margins of society and use stolen identities.
A record which knows more about you than you do yourself and its all online down at your local police headquarters. Not that the police are necessarily bad guys, trouble is that AdvertisingDotCom will have the same thing as the police have on their database and all they care about is owning your money. I thought slavery had been outlawed but it looks like we are about to bring it back in the name of economic efficiency.
Time to wake up and get on the civil liberty bandwagon.
Re:Making a big noise here in Utah.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't you see... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Okay, we'll even name this one the Matrix."
"There's no way that'll work man! They had the movie and everything!"
"We already had Operation: Iraqi Freedom and the Patriot Act go through, you'll see."
(1 year later...)
"Holy shit! They didn't even protest once! Amazing."
I swear to god guys, there will be a security project called "Big Brother" or something similarly bizarre in the near future. The guys in charge have just grown bored of having endless money and material goods, and they've moved to something more exciting for them: seeing how tightly they can squeeze the litte folk.
Re:when governments remove civil liberties (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a big deal because it's a centralized database that enjoys a legal status more powerful than any individual in which it represents. Governemtental bodies, corperations, and others that have authority to make decisions that affect a human life can and will base their decisions upon the information found in centralised dossiers. Your arguments against any inaccuracies or biased representations will carry far less weight, and you will be dealt with by a system where your past history is too much of a liability to ignore regardless of your present intent.
In short: It spits upon the grave of every man who has given their life to protect the freedom and liberty in these United States.
Other than that... No big deal... None at all.
Great way to find scapegoats (Score:5, Insightful)
The public will look at the evidence and proclaim the suspect guilty. The jury will look at the evidence and declare the suspect guilty. Then they'll congradulate the FBI on a job well done. All the while, the real culprit sits back and laughs since he stole the supplies from someone who bought them with cash. He didn't show as a suspect at all.
People look at the fouth amendment and assume it's there to keep the authorities from annoying you. They think it's okay for the authorities to run a search as long as the person being searched doesn't know about it. The thing is, the more people the authorities investigate, the more likely they are to turn up false positives. That may work wonders in picking out a scapegoat, but it won't help find the real criminal if the real criminal took even minimal precautions to stay off the list. The fourth amendment is supposed to do more than protect people from annoying searches. It is there to make sure the authorities do their job right.
Re:when governments remove civil liberties (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That is the worst thing I've ever read (Score:2, Insightful)
I was amused (in a sad way) with what happened immediately after that. The Pro-Patriot Act supporters must have been seething over the usurping of attention. Something had to be done! They have to show their support! President Bush continued with his speech, "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule." And, without thinking, the Patriot Act supporters applauded.
Yes, that's right. They applauded that the terrorist threat will not go away! They cheered that U.S. citizens' lives would continue to be in danger! They celebrated that there were still those out to harm us!
That is the same kind of knee-jerk, 'gotta do something' mindset that got us the Patriot Act in the first place.
In case you're interested in verifying the above, read President Bush's State Of The Union speech [whitehouse.gov]. I'm slightly surprised that the publisher has noted the applause at both the points mentioned above. I thought they might have 'edited' that out to avoid embarrasment to the administration. I'm glad I'm wrong on that count.
Echoes of the past (Score:4, Insightful)
I never wanted to live in Russia. I just wanted America to be the place it's supposed to be. I want American freedom to mean more than the freedom to continue shopping while our trusted leaders take care of everything.
Re:when governments remove civil liberties (Score:5, Insightful)
Realy, getting invlved does help. Vote, Write, Orginize.
The group wit the most motivated supporters wins. I've seen too may politicians vote against large campaign contributors to believe there all bad.
Disagree? fine. All I can say is I get involved in issue that are important to me. I can name my representitives off the top of my head and get personal emails. Along with there regular stadard emails.
So, you can take that NEW WORLD ORDER defeatism and stick it. I'm doing what all true patriots are doing, standing up for what is right and getting involved.
What charges against the governor? (Score:1, Insightful)
1) Impeach the governer, and sue him into the poorhouse.
2) Destroy the data.
3) Add a constitutional amendment preventing corporate and government data gathering on private citizens.
4) Never forget that they tried to do this.
5) Remember why we have the right to bear arms.
Re:Um.. (Score:5, Insightful)
As I said the last time the PATRIOT act came up I dont think it really has a lot to do with 9/11 or preventing another one. 9/11 was more a convenient excuse for the right wing to reimplement domestic spying. Lets spell it, out the Patriot act is designed to reimplement domestic spying as it was prior to the 1970's.
The right wing has been really ticked since the early '70's when constraints were put on FBI and CIA domestic spying activities. We've pretty much forgotten why those constraints were put in place.
In a nutshell domestic spying seems like a great idea if it stays in the box and just focuses on dangerous foreign elements, terrotists, or maybe even dangerous domestic elements. The problem is once the ball gets rolling it never does stay in the box. Its just a matter of time before the people who control it, the people in power, redirect it from just the truly dangerous elements to spying on everyone they consider dangerous, which quickly becomes all their political opponents including people who aren't dangerous, but who are just exercising first amendment rights to disagree by doing things like opposing misguided wars like Vietnam or Iraq or advocating controversial things like equal rights and and end to segregation as was the case in the 60's.
Two classic examples:
J. Edgar Hoover used the FBI to spy on everybody. He acquired dirt on basicly everyone including all politicians. As a result he became largely untouchable. No one would dare suggest replacing him, lest he pull out the file he had on them. Hoover probably had some serious skeletons in his own closet but no one would dare expose them. Hoover controlled the FBI for 48 years and didn't get ousted until God did it when he died. Its no coincidence major constraints were put on the FBI's abuse of domestic spying about the time Hoover died. It was the first time it was possible. 48 years is an unnaturally long and unhealthy time for one person to have unchallenged control of a nations domestic law enforcement, he had it thanks to domestic spying. Hoover in particular abused domestic spying in the case of Martin Luther King. King was not a violent person, not a terrorist. His main danger was exercising his first amendment right to speak out against segregation and the Vietnam war. Hoover made King's life a living hell by abusing domestic spying, for example by discovering extramarital affairs and using them as blackmail, and I wouldn't be suprised if he helped encourage his assasination because he was percieved as a threat by the established powers.
Richard Nixon became extraordinarily paranoid and was really obsessed with his reelection. As a result he abused both the FBI and the CIA to help insure he retained power. Let's remember that Watergate was Nixon abusing his domestic spying powers to spy on his political opposition in an effort to insure they didn't get elected. When a president uses domestic spying to hold power you are headed towards something that isn't democracy. We could very well be heading down the same road today.
Here is a thought experiment. If Jesus were alive today and he preached basicly the same message he did 2000 years ago, and just updated it for the times how would people like Bush and Ashcroft, supposedly devout Christians, recieve him.
If no one listened to him he would just be branded a left wing nut, pacifist, anti war, soft on terrorism, unpatriotic and probably a Democrat. Its a certainty he would have opposed the war on Iraq and all use of force by the U.S. Bush and Ashcroft would not appreciate that viewpoint. He might well be branded a communist since I doubt Jesus would have had anything good to say about investment bankers, stock brokers and the rampant greed that dominates America.
If a lot of people heard Jesus's message and started to follow him, perhaps by engaging in passive resistance and peaceful protest the full weight of the FBI and the patriot act would be
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they understand the difference between correlation and causation?
Do they know that statistically billion to one odds means the thing has happened to 7 people?
Somewhere out there, there's a guy who has un-alibied absences on his record that exactly match with a string of unsolved robberies, and he ISN"T the robber.
Re: Moroni about Mormons (Score:5, Insightful)
Which part of that is contradictory?
Mormons believe they are saved through works; entire books of the Bible (Galatians, Romans) teach against that principle.
Where does it teach against that principle? If I'm not mistaken, we are saved through Faith AND Works. There's even a scripture in the bible that talks about that.
Mormons believe there are many gods. The Bible is quite clear that is wrong.
We only worship one God. The bible is quite clear that we only worship one God. And please explain in further detail what you mean by "believe there are many gods" so I know you know what you're talking about; because it's quite clear that you do not.
Definition of a Christian - One who believes in Christ
Mormons believe in Christ; therefore they are Christians. They also believe in the Bible, so all your arguments are not only innaccurate in the first place, they don't support your point to any extent.
Re:Making a big noise here in Utah.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm willing to bet you all of your tax information is already being merged in to this grand unified domestic spying database. If it isn't already its just a matter of time. If they can look at all your bank records, and the books you read, what exactly is sacred about your tax returns. Maybe the IRS was good at protecting privacy but if the President, with the backing of a Republican congress, tells the IRS to turn over all their records it will happen in a heart beat.
Not sure what you mean by the trends where there 20 or 30 years ago. Almost 30 years ago, or actually in 1975 the Church commission actually reversed the tide and trend against domestic spying:
http://www.labournet.net/world/0109/us15.html
Maybe you're suggesting the trend was there because we acquired computers and everything moved to an electronic form which made this kind of domestic spying feasible.
I'm saying its really only been since Bush and Ashcroft came to power and 9/11 gave then the excuse, that domestic spying reacquired momentum and it also has the massive new danger that they can abuse computing to implement it now. This is not a long established trend, its very new as in about 3 years.
It is deeply disturbing to think about how dangerous domestic spying was in the '60's and '70's and then how really dangerous it will be today when its combined with massive computing power, databases and electronic tracking of everything every person does. In the old days they had to use shoe leather to spy on people so they had to identify people they considered dangerous and they couldn't track very many. Today they can use software to watch everyone and let a computer spot anyone they want to single out for punishment.
I think I actually have more confidence in the old 1960's brand of domestic spying to not make mistakes. Just look at all the people being red flagged as terrorists by the TSA simply because they have the same as a terrorist suspect, though NOTHING else matches. It gives you zero confidence that this massive loss of privacy and freedom will even result in the supposed goal, captured terrorists.
As another example I am relatively confident there are very few potential terrorists in the state of Utah. They would stick out like a sore thumb and you wouldn't need an intrusive database to spot them. A similar argument was made about the government using airline records to feed in to their new TSA scanners. The problem was there were no hijackings among all of the records they were analyzing, Northwest or JetBlue, so what is the point of searching for a person or event that wasn't in the data in the first place. Its not really trying to catch a terrorist, its trying to spying on everyone.
"It doesn't matter that we have a dossier (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no longer any law, just legislation. There is no longer any law-enforcement - just enforcement. It is no longer possible to be a policeman, and also a good man. The law does not recognise rights; so, rights do not recognise the law. I hereby declare anarchy!
Re:Conspiracy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats why we are innocent until proven guilty and convictions are tested against reasonable doubt.
Except that President Bush seems hell bent on ignoring these principals in the case of Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. It appears that your fear of a national law enforcement database is well founded with your present leaders policys. Self defence is supposed to defend you, not destroy your freedom.
Does anyone see any similarities? (Score:3, Insightful)
We're going to spend hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, piss off the world as a whole, lose our civil rights, and many of us will lose our inalienable rights.
In the end nothing will have been accomplished but a short period of country-wide unity and a temporary popularity surge for a national leader who really does not deserve it.
Vote Bush out (Score:2, Insightful)
If we allow that puppet and his masters another four years (they stole the fucking election anyway), the fix is in. Prepare to see an attempt to can the constitutional amendment banning more than 2 presidential terms. It might not help Bush as it couldn't make it through ratification in time, but if they can fully dominate the unthinking middle class and put a second puppet in power in 2008: watch and learn.
When they kick down your front door, how you gonna come?
Re:when governments remove civil liberties (Score:5, Insightful)
If one of our liberties is the freedom to give someone software we have written without charging money, and a corporation insists that doing so "deprives" said corporation their "right" to charge you for similar software, and says about your act of charity that "It undermines our basic system of intellectual property rights, and it destroys the economic reason for innovation" [eweek.com]...well, I'd say that corporation was trying to remove your liberties in order to eliminate competition and declare de facto ownership of a market. Does THAT make sense?
Re:when governments remove civil liberties (Score:4, Insightful)
Managed means the corporatists and their lackeys in the House and Senate make sure the laws they pass MANAGE to enrich their friends and punish their enemies, and make damn well sure no one but the two approved political parties ( read MANAGED ) are able to get into office.
Need to change the focus (Score:4, Insightful)
We need to shift the focus of the debate from whether or not the database exists to how it is used. I think we need a new Bill of Rights to protect us from inaccurate and misused information in ANY database.
People should be able to sue the hell out of a database provider who distributes inaccurate information, and the responsiblility for accuracy should rest on the provider, not on the poor slob being tracked.
In fact, maybe there OUGHT to be a government sponsored database, because then there would be a specific place to go check for inaccuracies, instead of trying to guess who's got what on you.
And there should be severe restrictions on the uses that can be made of the information. I don't care if the government knows I marched against the war, but I damn well don't expect to get my taxes audited as a result. It's way easier to enforce restrictions on the inappropriate use of information than it is on the simple collection of it.
And anyone using data about me from the database should be liable if they can't prove they're using it on me, not someone else. What if you could sue Macy's for opening a credit account in your name using your credit data if it wasn't really you?
Government doesn't have to be the enemy. This is a place where the power of government could be used to protect us. Of course, you'd have to have a government that cared.
Re:when governments remove civil liberties (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes a whole lot more sense if you understand the unspoken assumption that the corporations are the real power and the government is just doing what the corporations want them to do. Remember how eager Oracle Corporation was to help build a national identification database? [abc.net.au] The point is that corporations just see this as another short term business opportunity, regardless of the civil liberty consequences.
Re:Acronym (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW, using the x in a word like exchange as part of an acronym is standard practice going back a long time. It's part of what make good acronyms clever.
Re:Thats it... (Score:3, Insightful)
And you still can't understand why some of us don't want our names, addresses, habits and proclivities listed in a database?
Because sometimes the guy who hates jokes becomes the DA / police chief / mayor / Sturmbannfuhrer / Attorney General.
I don't know about anyone else (Score:4, Insightful)
Leave it to Utah.
Re:Um.. (Score:4, Insightful)
In all fairness, it's not all of the right wing who support the fascist ideology of the neo-conservatives.
There are plenty of old-school Republicans out there who really do support things like small government, low taxes, and individual rights.
I just hope they realize that even though Emperor Dubyah calls himself a Republican instead of a Fascist, they don't need to vote for him this year.
Re:America: Wake the fuck up! (Score:5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 31, @07:23PM (#8146965)
Please... Europe has never been "free", but until recently we here in the old country could aspire to going to america. Now, america is turning into prewar germany, and we've got no where to go. Stop it! before it's too late!
This AC got modded Troll. But I wanted to repost it.
I'll tell a little story. I read, not too long ago, a story written by a daughter of a German migrant. This women's parents left germany during/before the true rise of Hitler.
Now, for those who may have only thought of Nazis as Evil Ones(TM) in a cartoon manner, stop and consider their rise to power. There *was* wide-spread support for the Nazis. They won an election to take power -- Germans SUPPORTED the Nazis. The nation was in a state of euphoria, literally in love with the notion of their own greatness...
This women's parents left because they sensed something basic and unsettling was happening. They new what Germany was becoming and where it could lead.
Near the end of her article she spoke about the USA. Its hubris, its sense of infallibility and selfrighteousness. She wondered if she would have the strength and wisdom to recognize when the USA had reached this tipping point, she wondered if it was now... or would be soon.
As a foriegn observer (Canadian) I just want to tell you that this Matrix stuff is not a surprise. The USA (its government) is heading off on a very strange tangent. Just consider for a moment that the world watched -- with not a little public objection -- the USA invade and occupy two foriegn nations.... whatever you might think justified this act, please consider: The USA is actively invading other nations unprovoked*.
I want people to see what this AC is saying, because I agree. If you think you can sit back and reelect a Republicrat (again, as you have continuously for 100 years) and things will get better you're very wrong.
Let me lay it out, something is very wrong with the USA; its fat, angry, powerfull and violent. Your leaders think they world belongs to them -- and you citizens are sheep -- and we are all going to suffer immensly if something is not done to re-align the USA.
This Matrix stuff is nothing.
* the WTC crashes were criminal acts, the kind of behaviour that requires police, not armies... unless of course you are the kind of proto-fascist-jingoist-American I am worried about, who refuses to consider this reality....(and the article-author sees her country-men becoming)
more classic quotes (Score:3, Insightful)
Neo: Right now, we're inside a computer program?
Morpheus: Is it really so hard to believe?
What is the matrix? Control. It was built to keep us under control...
The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. When you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, lawyers, carpenters, the very minds of the people...
But of course we must honor the best quotes from each of the three movies:
The Matrix:
Context: Morpheus jumps a massive gap between two skyscrapers
Neo: Woah.
Reloaded:
Context: Neo throws a smith out of the battle, where he lands, hard.
Smith: More!
More context: (More smiths charge in)
Revolutions:
Context: Neo runs out of the train station, off to the left, and we see him come back into the train station on the right.
Neo: Shit!
That sums up the three movies, and also the main reactions that this MATRIX thing seems to be inspired by:
Woah!
More!!
Shit!!!
Re: Moron about Mormons (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it that anytime a posted article that contains the word Utah or SCO or Novell people automatically assume the Mormons are behind it. Sure, some Mormon folk may be working at these places, but I am sick of people bashing the LDS Church anytime the state of Utah is mentioned or implied in an article.
It's all a big waste of time (like this post, too).
The article is about something serious. A supposedly Republican/Conservative governor signed my entire state up for this MATRIX thing... I am none-too-happy about this one. It seems like all the conservatives have lost any spines they said they had and turned into tax and spend liberals and big government, big-brother types.
I am quite happy that he's left Utah for the EPA. He's always been a shifty character in my IMHO.
Please stick to the topic at hand. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints had nothing to do with the MATRIX. The MATRIX is very intrusive. Mormon-bashing is very stupid and a waste of typing, talking, thinking, etc.
Good night and have a pleasant tomorrow. - SNL Weekend Update
Re:Um.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the biggest spending president in recent history will enjoy the full support of so called conservatives. The president who grew the govt most, intruded on the lives of ordinary citizens the most, the president who gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, who erected steel tarrifs etc will enjoy the support of conservatiives fully.
Why? Two reasons.
1) Bush will not let gays get married and will appoint anti abortion judges.
2) People who call themselves conservatives are not really conservative, they are just republicans who vote any repubican who runs.
The Abridged Compleat Comments (Abrgd.) (Score:2, Insightful)
"...the MATRIX!"
"1984!!!!"
The thing about terrorists... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure you could argue that it's a freedom to live but what's the point of living if you're being watched all the time? In the words of a famous Scottish leader in a film: You can take our lives but you will never take our freedom.
IRS data sharing in Nixon Era (Score:3, Insightful)
Matrix removes that level of human review.
Re:America: Wake the fuck up! (Score:1, Insightful)
And then watch as a Diebold voting machine counts your vote as a vote for Bush.
Re:Um.. (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that there is no Republican candidate for 2004, just a Fascist candidate (and before anyone mods me a troll, do some research on the historical goals and ideals of Fascism).
Pretending that the Emperor is a Republican is like the Democrats running David Duke and claiming that he will represent the interests they are traditionally associated with, just because he's got their logo attached to his campaign.
It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I'm hoping enough Republicans feel like I did in 2000 - when the Democrats ran the husband of Tipper Gore (a huge opponent of free speech) and Lieberman (essentially a crypto-Fascist) - to make a difference.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:America: Wake the fuck up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sharks kill more people than terrorists do. Cars kill tens of times more people than terrorists do. Smoking kills hundreds of times more people than terrorists do. Cancer and heart desease kill thousands of times more people than terrorists do. But THEY do not show those dead people on TV, and so YOU believe that those deaths do not happen.
Please, check out this anti-Bush ad [speedera.net] to see exactly what I am talking about.
Free your mind. Learn the math. Fight the Matrix.