Pentagon Creating A Database Of Students 1014
needacoolnickname writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Pentagon is working with a marketing firm to create a database of students ages 16 through college to help them identify recruits. A little chuckle from the Pentagon in the article: '...anyone can opt out of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate suppression file. That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.'"
Article Content (Score:5, Informative)
Pentagon Creating Student Database
Recruiting Tool For Military Raises Privacy Concerns
By Jonathan Krim
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 23, 2005; A01
The Defense Department began working yesterday with a private marketing firm to create a database of high school students ages 16 to 18 and all college students to help the military identify potential recruits in a time of dwindling enlistment in some branches.
The program is provoking a furor among privacy advocates. The new database will include personal information including birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, ethnicity and what subjects the students are studying.
The data will be managed by BeNow Inc. of Wakefield, Mass., one of many marketing firms that use computers to analyze large amounts of data to target potential customers based on their personal profiles and habits.
"The purpose of the system . . . is to provide a single central facility within the Department of Defense to compile, process and distribute files of individuals who meet age and minimum school requirements for military service," according to the official notice of the program.
Privacy advocates said the plan appeared to be an effort to circumvent laws that restrict the government's right to collect or hold citizen information by turning to private firms to do the work.
Some information on high school students already is given to military recruiters in a separate program under provisions of the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act. Recruiters have been using the information to contact students at home, angering some parents and school districts around the country.
School systems that fail to provide that information risk losing federal funds, although individual parents or students can withhold information that would be transferred to the military by their districts. John Moriarty, president of the PTA at Walter Johnson High School in Bethesda, said the issue has "generated a great deal of angst" among many parents participating in an e-mail discussion group.
Under the new system, additional data will be collected from commercial data brokers, state drivers' license records and other sources, including information already held by the military.
"Using multiple sources allows the compilation of a more complete list of eligible candidates to join the military," according to written statements provided by Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke in response to questions. "This program is important because it helps bolster the effectiveness of all the services' recruiting and retention efforts."
The Pentagon's statements added that anyone can "opt out" of the system by providing detailed personal information that will be kept in a separate "suppression file." That file will be matched with the full database regularly to ensure that those who do not wish to be contacted are not, according to the Pentagon.
But privacy advocates said using database marketers for military recruitment is inappropriate.
"We support the U.S. armed forces, and understand that DoD faces serious challenges in recruiting for the military," a coalition of privacy groups wrote to the Pentagon after notice of the program was published in the Federal Register a month ago. "But . . . the collection of this information is not consistent with the Privacy Act, which was passed by Congress to reduce the government's collection of personal information on Americans."
Chris Jay Hoofnagle, West Coast director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the system "an audacious plan to target-market kids, as young as 16, for military solicitation."
He added that collecting Social Security numbers was not only unnecessary but posed a needless risk of identity fraud. Theft of Social Security numbers and other personal in
Re:the draft (Score:3, Informative)
Given the kind of trouble they'd have with keeping draftees motivated, and the kind of skills they need, I doubt the military would want a draft.
It's easy to train somebody to be a WWII-level grunt. But most jobs in a modern military require a lot of intelligence, and it would be very easy for somebody to feign incompetence.
One step beyond.. (Score:5, Informative)
A little-noticed clause in the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to hand over students' names, addresses and telephone numbers to military recruiters as a condition of receiving federal aid.
I guess this would fill in the gaps and really make sure 'no child is left behind'.
I wonder would this lead to more or less stories like this:
In one well-publicized case in Colorado, Army recruiters were tape-recorded encouraging a student journalist posing as a high school dropout to create a diploma from a non-existent school to comply with military enlistment requirements. They also were heard giving him advice on how to disguise a chronic "marijuana problem" and how to pass a mandatory drug test.
Nothing new here... (Score:2, Informative)
More details are available here... http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i14/14a02201.htm [chronicle.com]
Is this something worth being shocked about? Not really, student data is shared all the time in the academic system. This includes everything about that student and their families.
Personally, I say "eh!". The government (and everyone else with your info) has been doing it for 50+ years, so having one more is no biggie. I think these things are hyped a little too much.
Re:your infosec on file (Score:2, Informative)
I did that and now I only get an offer once in a blue moon.
Re:the draft (Score:5, Informative)
Nah. The Chiken-Little's shouting "the draft is coming" are (naturally) unfamiliar with how the military is currently structured. The entire training system is geared towards willing, self-motivated recruits who are there of their own volition. Anyone can, at any time in the first 6 months of their enlistment, say "this isn't working for me" and get out with a simple Entry Level Separation. An ELS doesn't show up as a "black mark" on your record anywhere.
But moving to a draft system, suddenly everyone is there at gunpoint. Most draftees will be recalcitrant, unmotivated dregs suitable for nothing more complicated than cannon fodder infantry. This may have been OK during the Bad Old Days, but even being an infantryman these days requires a fair bit of technical competency. Furthermore, the real shortage in the military is in recruiting people for complex technical jobs rather than straight-up combat arms. So essentially they'd end up with a whole raft of uncooperative bedding-delousing specialists just to get a handfull of tactical intelligence analysts. The military doesn't want the draft. They want more volunteers.
No Child Left Behind (Score:4, Informative)
Also - there are ways for high school parents and students to "opt out" of the recruiting campaign. If you're a high school student or parent of such a student, you might find these links helpful:
Re:You are expendable pawns. (Score:2, Informative)
Google Army Rape [google.com] sometime. All over the world and time the stories are many of women and girls being raped at the behest of institutionalized misogyny. If you do not believe that these sort of actions get carried home than lookup Domestic Violence in the Army [google.com]. Soldiers are the last people I would want as friends, family or neighbors after my own exp. with the mentally unstable they send back to the US from god knows what hell.
Re:In other words (Score:5, Informative)
There's a reason why recruiters focus on poorer areas in their recruiting drives. The military offers a steady job for four years with additional compensation for people who go to college afterwards. It also offers the possibility of making one's career in the military. When you compare that to the alternative - working in low-wage blue collar jobs, when you're working at all - people in poor areas find the military to be an attractive option. In more affluent areas, recruitment isn't as worthwhile, because most kids have the resources already available to them to take a different (safer, easier, higher-paying) career path by going to college immediately.
This isn't some insidious plot to enlist underprivileged kids. It's an appropriate allocation of recruitment resources to the areas of the country where recruitment will be the most successful. In other words, this is the military being efficient.
Any other time, people would be complaining about how the military wastes so much money - but in this case, where the military is managing its resources well, they're accused of being nefarious. I guess they just can't win.
Re:In other words (Score:5, Informative)
First off, I'm not a recruiter though I am in the Air Force and have been so for 10 years. Recruiters don't "prey" on poor kids, but yes they do find many potential recruites in that population. When compared to their options getting sent to Iraq to fight has a much higher life expectancy than staying home and getting involved to crime and drugs.
Actually recruiters rather go after the middle class kids since most of your lower class have to many educational problems and past criminal behaivor. Most are turned away as unexceptable as they can't pass minimum standards. Turns out the Army doesn't want to deal with them either and could easily fill their quotas plus some if they where willing to snatch up every poor 17-20 year old that applied.
The military has always been a stepping stone to move out of dead end social/economic situation. In my case it was either go on unemployment/welfare or go back and live with the parents, neither were viable options in my mind, so instead I joined the Air Force. Out of the deal I've gotten two college degrees and enough certifications/licenses in aviation (pilot and mechanic) as well as SCUBA to choke a very hungry donkey. By the time I'm done, 10 more years to go, I'll have a retirement check, a Masters degree, and my transport pilot rating. Not to bad of a deal at all.
Opportunities are what you make of them. The military is a very good opportunity for the poor if they can even get it in the first place. The rich will always avoid the military unless it has something they want. It wouldn't be too hard though to get them to join. Just bring back the death tax and make it 75% for those that don't serve (on the kids not the parents) and make public service (military, police, fire, etc ala Heinland) a requirement to hold public office. The rich kids would be flooding the recruiters then.
Re:Article Content (Score:1, Informative)
This information sharing is now manditory as a condition to receive federal dollars.
Re:the draft (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Overreact much? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, readin the article, this new Pentagon plan has nothing to do with that. This plan is merely collating information that they already have. The GPA information was part of previous legislation tied to no child left behind. That I think is a privacy invasion and that that particular of NCLB should be challenged. But the Pentagon's database itself is not the issue.
Re:In other words (Score:1, Informative)
Only when it came time to pay, I was told that my original paperwork was in error. Finance in Kansas said that the loan program for that MOS ended two days before I signed the papers at MEPS, so I was not eligible for the program.
But they did give me the option of re-upping another 3 years in order to qualify for the loan repayment.
I figured that my congressman could maybe pull some strings and help me. So I took it to Lee Terry's office. While his staff was polite, they sat on the 2 inches of papers that I had to show that I was eligible. I called every week for about a year, even though they stopped returning my calls after a couple of months.
All I can say to anyone thinking about joining, is to _never_ count on your benefits to be there when you need them. And don't expect anyone to help you, either.
Fsckers.
Re:your infosec on file (Score:3, Informative)
Selective Services (Score:2, Informative)
Existing petitions to block this... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a link to more information:
http://www.themmob.com/lmca/about.html [themmob.com]
Re:WHO HAS SERVED? THE ANSWER IS HERE! (Score:1, Informative)
Prominent Democrats
Representative Richard Gephardt, former House Minority Leader - Missouri Air National Guard, 1965-71. (1, 2)
Representative David Bonior - Staff Sgt., United States Air Force 1968-72 (1, 2)
Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle - 1st Lt., U.S. Air Force SAC 1969-72 (1, 2)
Former Vice President Al Gore - enlisted August 1969; sent to Vietnam January 1971 as an army journalist, assigned to the 20th Engineer Brigade headquartered at Bien Hoa, an airbase twenty miles northeast of Saigon. More facts about Gore's Service
Former Senator Bob Kerrey... Democrat... Lt. j.g., U.S. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam (1, 2)
Senator Daniel Inouye, US Army 1943-'47; Medal of Honor, World War Two (1, 2)
Senator John Kerry, Lt., U.S. Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three awards of the Purple Heart for his service in combat (1)
Representative Charles Rangel, Staff Sgt., U.S. Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea (1, 2)
Former Senator Max Cleland, Captain, U.S. Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star, Vietnam (1, 2)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) - U.S. Army, 1951-1953. (1)
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) - Lt., U.S. Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74. (1, 2)
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) - U.S. Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve 1979-91 (1)
Senator Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - served as a U.S. Army officer in World War II, receiving the Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons. (1)
Representative Leonard Boswell (D-IA) - Lt. Col., U.S. Army 1956-76; two tours in Vietnam, two Distinguished Flying Crosses as a helicopter pilot, two Bronze Stars, and the Soldier's Medal. (1, 2)
Former Representative "Pete" Peterson, Air Force Captain, POW, Ambassador to Viet Nam, and recipient of the Purple Heart, the Silver Star and the Legion of Merit. (1, 2)
Rep. Mike Thompson, D-CA: Staff sergeant/platoon leader with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, U.S. Army; was wounded and received a Purple Heart. (1, 2)
Bill McBride, Democratic Candidate for Florida Governor - volunteered and served as a U.S. Marine in Vietnam; awarded Bronze Star with a combat "V." (1)
Gray Davis, former California Governor, Army Captain in Vietnam; received Bronze Star. (1)
Pete Stark, D-CA, served in the Air Force 1955-57
Wesley Clark, Democratic Presidential Candidate - lengthy military career.
Prominent Republicans
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey - avoided the draft, did not serve.
House Majority Leader Tom Delay - avoided the draft, did not serve (1). "So many minority youths had volunteered
House Majority Whip Roy Blunt - did not serve
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist - did not serve. (An impressive medical resume, but not such a friend to cats in Boston.)
Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-KY - did not serve (1)
Rick Santorum, R-PA, third ranking Republican in the Senate - did not serve. (1)
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott - avoided the draft, did not serve.
Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld - served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as an aviator and flight instructor. (1) Served as President Reagan's Special Envoy to the Middle East and met with Saddam Hussein twice in 1983 and 1984.
GW Bush - decided that a six-year Nat'l Guard commitment really means four years. Still says that he's "been to war." Huh?
VP Cheney - several deferments (1, 2), the last by marriage (in his own words, "had other priorities than military service") (1)
Att'y Gen. John Ashcroft - did not serve (1, 2); received seven deferment to teach business ed at SW Missouri State
Jeb Bush, Florida Governor - did not serve. (1)
Karl Rove - avoided the draft, did not serve (1), too busy being a Republican.
Former Speaker Newt Gingrich - avoided the draft, did not serve (1, 2)
Former President Ronald Reagan - due to poor eyesight
Re:Any going to ask why the military is doing this (Score:2, Informative)
That's a load of crap. I was a teacher for four years, and while I can certainly rant plenty about the deterioration of localized public schooling, I can tell you that especially in depressed and urban areas, you'd be hard pressed to find a teacher who wouldn't counsel a student considering the military to go for it. The vast majority of teachers I've worked with in the midwest are aredent supporters of our armed forces and the character/career building it provides to young men and women.
Take a look at communities like East Chicago; Gary, IN; Flint, MI; Johnstown, PA; Viroqua, WI. These are public schools, and many students from these school systems graduate and serve in the military.
If you don't like the fact that enlistment is low in mid-to-upper-class suburbia, direct your anger elsewhere. Not every kid needs to grow up to be a soldier. We need civilian leaders, too.
My problem with this program is that as active as the government seems to be in enlisting kids (yes, at 16 or 18, you're still a kid), we as a society seem disinterested in encouraging civil leadership in our poorer communities. It would be nice if the military was an "attractive option" instead of the "only option" for these kids.
Re:the draft (Score:3, Informative)
Much of the military is still structured for fighting a war with the Soviet Union. In many cases this is because of Congressional porkbarrel-preservation and the inertia inherent in any large organization. However, changes are in motion to make better use of the available personnel.
Re:This is not new . (Score:3, Informative)
They weren't interested. I guarantee it. Collection of scores is probably just typical government aggregation of pointless data. It sounds to me like there's some failure to understand how the DCM/CMP [shongum.org](Director of Civilian Marksmanship/Civilian Marksmanship Program) works. It was created in 1908 by an act of congress to encourage rifle proficiency among an increasingly urban national population that was showing a dimishing familiarity with firearms. It's administered by the US Army, but has its own budget. It's no fiendish plot by dark forces trade bullets for recruitment leads, it's a nearly century old and largely irrelevant government program. DCM hands out free bullets, and generates useless reports saying "scores show that marksmanship has improved; good job we're doing; continue to fund us".
Re:You are expendable pawns. (Score:3, Informative)
Doh, I did miss the opportunity to point out there was an ulterior motive for George H.W. Bush enlisting when he did, and pulling strings to get a fighter in the Pacfic though he was way under age for it.
Right before he enlisted the Bush family, in particular his dad, George W.'s grandad, Prescott Bush was embroiled in a scandal. Prescott was a leading officer of Union Banking in New York, and most think he actually ran it day to day for the Harriman family. Soon after Pearl Harbor, Union Banking's assets were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act. In particular Union Banking was the American investment arm forthe Thyssen family, one Germany's richest industrial dynasties. In fact Fritz Thyssen played a key role in bringing Hitler to power, by uniting the industrial magnates of Germany behind the National Socialists and in fact bankrolling them early in their rise to power (something Thyssen later came to regret). He wrote a rather dull book on his role in creating the 20th century's worst nightmare called "I Paid Hitler".
George H.W. Bush somewhat rushed in to the service not long after the scandal broke in the New York papers, and there is conjecture it may have been to salvage the future political fortunes of the family, and to deflect the impression that they were in bed with the enemy. The Bush's did pull strings due to his age, and may also may have pulled strings to get him to the Pacific theater and as far away from Nazi Germany as possible. The Bush family like a lot of wealthy American's (Henry Ford for example) gleefully invested in and did business with Nazi Germany in the 30's, and were more than a little sympathetic to Fascism especially in the face of the threat of Communism and the U.S.S.R. Doing business with the Thyssens in particullar did in many ways make the Bush family complicit in Hitler's rise to power.