Don't Worry, We're Not From The Government 361
PolarBear3 writes "It seems that MSNBC.com is reporting that the government (U.S.) is looking to the private sector to data mine against it's [citizens|terrorists] since they are prevented by law from doing so themselves. Two quotes: 'People in the government, very much so in the Justice Department, have been playing out a lust for information that is not consistent with who we have been as a nation' & 'A range of laws limits how government can collect and use information on its citizens. The private sector, by contrast, operates under fewer restrictions.' Seems to show a nation fighting itself."
Who said... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who said... (Score:3, Interesting)
No more April Fool's. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No more April Fool's. (Score:3, Insightful)
While it is true that the majority of the American public are ignorant apathetic scumbags (read non-voters), the relevant fact which you chose to ignore is that if Jeb hadn't committed an act of treason then GWBush would not have been elected.
Also, we're talking about Bush. Not Gore. Bush.
The fact is that Bush committed an act of treason by stepping int
Hoax #101 ? (Score:2, Insightful)
How do the government spell "totalitarian" ? d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y ???
sigh
Representative Representative Republic (Score:5, Insightful)
Each Party is controlled by one or more Corporations Blatantly obvious libertarian advertisement goes here. [lp.org]
But I Thought Corporations == The Government (Score:3, Informative)
"We are living in New Corporate Feudalism."
(And just in case you have never heard of him, Jello Biafra was/is: the lead singer of The Dead kennedy's, San Francisco mayorial candidate, spoken word performer, World Trade activist and owner of Alternative Tentacles Records - the home of Noam Chomsky's recording archive)
Re:Representative Representative Republic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You're a libertarian? (Score:3, Funny)
Each Party is controlled by one or more Corporations Blatantly obvious libertarian advertisement goes here.
Jeez, here I was thinking you were a Green, what with the wasting-your-vote thing. Who'd have thunk?
Re:Hoax #101 ? (Score:3, Informative)
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. It is majority rules all the time, and you're screwed with the minority vote. In a republic, you divide the country into smaller voting blocks, each of which has the power to create rules for the locality. That way, if I look out at the insane decisions made over there in California, I can thank my lucky stars that I live on the east coast, where my ruleset is different.
And all of you
Re:Hoax #101 ? (Score:2)
What makes you think "democracy" has anything to do with "freedom" or "respect"? Democracy simply means that the government is elected by the people and is, at least in theory, responsible to the people.
Democratic nations can have styles ranging from socialist (Canada) to libertarian (Netherlands) to puritanical (U.S.A.) and choose to respect (Pierre Trudeau [iht.com]) or trod upon (George Bush Jr.) the
April fools? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:April fools? (Score:2, Informative)
not to nitpick or anything
Re:April fools? (Score:3, Funny)
~cHris
Re:April fools? (Score:2)
Re:April fools? (Score:2, Informative)
Of course they have, so has the UK government. Information is publicly available for download, such as the Bank of England sanctions file, OFAC sanctions file (Office of Foreign Assets Control
Re:April fools? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/gunhire.
Re:April fools? (Score:4, Informative)
Furthermore, the US government has been outsourcing all sorts of stuff to the private sector in order to get around certain "issues". For an interesting segue, check out a company called Dyncorp [dyncorp.com]. These guys are the ones in the jungles of S. America fighting the drug war (to get around stuff like Iran Contra), taking care of police action in Bosnia, and guarding Hamid Karzai. Interesting stuff, because from the coverage, you might suspect that these guys are American soldiers. They're not.
Mulder: Trust No One (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mulder: Trust No One (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah Right. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
In the process they have gathered records of people who are not suspects, he said. "Once they get it they like to keep it, because you never know when it might turn out to be useful."
So, we've got a ever growing database that's now got a HUGE budget to fuel it's growth. Anyone else scared?
Re:Yeah Right. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Impossible (Score:2)
It's impossible for the country to go bankrupt. Instead, the debt will continue to grow and elected officials will pay lip-service to cutting it down. The national debt has been higher than it currently stands in the past, but this administration seems to want to set new records.
Re:Yeah Right. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
For those in power, it already has been useful. Any expansion of government -- that is, anything which costs the people money or grants more power to government -- represents profit for those in control. If you are the chief of the DEA, would you support new restrictions on when your firm can raid the houses of suspects? Of course not. Increased funding for research on illegal drug use? No doubt! If you are the head of the "homeland security" program, do you support legislation giving you powers to monitor innocent civilians as if they are criminals? Of course -- it makes your job easier, and it makes you look better. Restrictions on free speech as it relates to "homeland security"? Bring it on. Due process and fair handling of criminal suspects? That only gets in the way.
We need to realize that positions of power attract not those who wish to live in peace and mind their own business, but those who wish to control others and profit off this control. Is it any wonder that the US government grows more expensive and more oppressive nearly every year?
The founders had it right when they put strict limits on the scope of government. Limited government is the only road to liberty and true justice.
Oh no! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh no! (Score:2)
Ashcrof screaming : JAAAIIIL!!
You are an American patriot... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You are an American patriot... (Score:3, Informative)
Hum, it's false : There [nacsonline.com] you can see that Coca-Cola is the licensed importer and distributor of Danone's Evian mineral water in North America ...
VERY OLD news... huge firm in FL doing it ages (Score:4, Informative)
They first started doing it for the CIA.
They have huge amounts of hard drive storage and lots of programmers.
now they sell to all big brother agencies... to SPY on americans on a per-lookup action.
The us is just "buying access"not administering the sickeningly complete database (all utility bills, all credit card transactions, all bank accounts, all phone call records (including local, etc etc)
I told you guys on slashdot about RFID transmitters in tires a complete year ago and everyone called me a liar until finally all the truth came out (the us gov to track car movement by RFIDs in tores at canadian borders and on I-75 and in bay area california).
I will not reveal the FLA corp. BUT its a fact... semi-first hand knowledge.
Re:VERY OLD news... huge firm in FL doing it ages (Score:3, Informative)
They may not be the guys you're talking about since they're HQ'd in Alpharetta, Georgia, but these guys [choicepoint.com] are used (in a big way) by the Internal Revenue Service. Is that scary enough for ya?
Re:VERY OLD news... huge firm in FL doing it ages (Score:3, Insightful)
They first started doing it for the CIA.
They have huge amounts of hard drive storage and lots of programmers.
now they sell to all big brother agencies... to SPY on americans on a per-lookup action.
That is all well and good. But you do not make even one substantiated statement. Everything you say can be take from you average badly written, set-in-the-present-day sci-fi novel, or the website of most any organization that believes the U.S. gonverment is composed of only people and agencies that a
You forgot one question (Score:3, Funny)
woohoo! (Score:3, Insightful)
1984 through corporations... (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes me glad I live in the EU where at least the governments will take on multi-nationals if it is in the public interest. In the US it seems as though most of the Republicans are in the pockets of corporate America and cracking down on any kind of social rights where-ever it will help the multinationals.
What it really does is prevent the legislature from protecting the little guy against large and powerful organisations. Claiming that all these things are done in the name of reduced government intervention, i.e. freedom, is the master stroke though. Unfortunately a large enough proportion of the population believe this and therefore vote for what is really an erosion of their rights.
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:5, Insightful)
And moreover: if the information is never disclosed to you, how can you file a complaint or press charges?
Most people are completely oblivious to the amount of information that is gathered about themselves. If you can compile all the scattered information of a particular person you can obtain a reasonable complete picture: Medical history, education, spending habits, income, where you live, what sports you do, etc. etc.
In the end there is only one way your privecy is protected: just another face in the crowd. Just like zebra-stripes. One zebra is very visible, but a heard is just like a striped ocean. Just make sure you are and stay a number, you have no problems.
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:2, Insightful)
You are correct about upholding the law, it would be very dificult, however that doesn't mean that it is not worth persuing. It is much easier to fight a legal battle against a government or corporation if the legislation is on y
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt it. They are security cameras at nearly every intersection, every corner of every building, yet crimes of person and property still go unsolved. What has increased are revenue generating infractions of "safety" laws, such as people who miscalculate the timing of yellow lights, not slowing down at stop signs, etc...
Looks like they want the general public to dance to marching orders more closely, since catching terrorists and criminals is a losing battle.
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:2)
With a background of database design, this is simple to show how difficult that is.
SELECT from possible-terrorists
WHERE baught-boxcutter = TRUE and
baught-plane-ticket = true
boom. one VERY VERY simple statement and your zebra herd just got REALLY small (comparatively to a national database) in a few processor cycles. Flying in the future? Got a utility knife in your house? congrats, you must be a terrorist! Staying a number is great and all, but da
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they have neither rights nor voices, then who cares what they think? Future generations will look back, and think of us as living in a dark age filled with wars and diseases - that finally ended once the enemies among us were identified
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:3, Interesting)
> 2) A well-trained, well-armed, professional army is a major threat to the powers that be. Remember why Stalin was so ill-prepared for WWII; he purged the military of everyone he could find that was competent.
> 3) Soldiers in a democracy's army are voters, and are related to voters. Equipping them badly would have bad results at election time. This is also w
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem isn't that we're not regulating corporations. If they want to collect data, you don't have to do your business there. Free market, you know? If no one will provide the service you want without "spying" on you, start up your own and make some money in the process!
The real problem is that the restrictions on the government aren't s
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:2)
And BTW, don't go running to the libertarians. Since they advocate the unbridled accumulation of private power, they'll just lead you right down the same path.
Once again, "It's all corporations' fault!" (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me get this straight: the government is to blame for not putting any controls on corporations that keep them from
The knee-jerk Leftist response is, "Greedy corporations want to take over all our rights." The unsaid response is, "Don't pay any attention to that Federal Governme
Re:1984 through corporations... (Score:5, Informative)
I know we have some dodgy stuff going on here as well but at least our privacy legislation is far more developed over here. Particularly with respect to an individuals rights over the data kept on them.
We also have a government and judicary who is more likely to take on and prosecute big business than in the US. If you want to see some examples (relating to food safety) then read Fast Food Nation to see how big business in the US can literally get away with murder or occasionally have to pay a ridiculously small fine...
Legal? (Score:5, Informative)
If government is prohibited by law from gathering this sort of intelligence for itself, using information gathered by others seems a flimsy defense against the law. If an FBI agent, paid by the government, snoops around it's illegal. But if a grocery store, paid by the government, gives you the info it is legal? I don't buy it.
Every credit card application I get in the mail has a little check box and requires my signature: "I authorize ----- to check my credit record and verify the information provided on this application....." So if companies can't check my credit rating w/o my approval, how is the government going to get it, as the article suggests?
This is a weak end-run around existing legal protections. While I would like to think that when the next airplane explodes in a huge ball of flame the citizenry will say "Wait! You told us we gave up our freedoms for protection. If you can't do that, we at least want to be able to fly unmolested!" But I fear all we'll hear is a government cry of "See? We've saved you from everything up to this, but we need more information to stop these attacks in the future." and the people will say "Ok, if you say so."
The Republicans are distracting everyone from their machinations by beating up on Iraq. The Democrats are meekly going along with it in some misguided attempt to "show support for our troops" when any idiot could tell you the best way to support the troops is to send them back home where there aren't people shooting at them, and spend that war money sending their kids to better schools.
Re:Legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pattern recognition can maybe point out an individual collecting materials to build a bomb of some sorts, but I doubt if it will be very effective against a group of potential terrorists plotting for a major strike, who are while making preparations, carefully avoid any member sticking out in any way.
I don't think that it's possible for the American Government to stop every terrorist attack directed at American targets. If a terrorsts wants to strike, he is able to, regardless of what is done to prevent him from it.
Maybe thought should be given to the question why a terrorist wants to strike...
Re:Legal? (Score:2, Informative)
When people think of Machiavelli, they usually stop at "It is better to be feared than loved," and blow off anything else.
Too bad. He had the most accurate description of why political things happen. He would have considered the above question the most important question. I guess people would rather derive their righteousness through "reason" from a "sate of nature" rather than deal with the harsh truth.
If you think tha
Re:Legal? (Score:2, Informative)
Teaser [sciam.com] available at their website.
Re:Legal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legal? (Score:4, Interesting)
I had this conversation with some Afghans just after the conflit there. It went like this:
Me: Why do you hate Americans?
Them: They invaded our country.
Me: But they kicked out the Taliban?
Them: Yes. It's much better now.
Me: So if they made it better, then why do you hate them?
Them: Because they invaded our country.
Of course it was more complicated than that, but the feeling I got (and my friend from the Ukraine tends to agree) was that they are just so used to hating us that they want to believe the worst, and it will take a long time to change that kind of impression.
I saw a similar report from deserting Iraqi soldiers.
Iraqis: I am glad that our country will be liberated, but it's too bad it has to be by those American devils.
Reporter: Would you rather they didn't come?
Iraqis: No, No, we want them, but they are still devils.
Hypocrits.
I think Bush is concentrating on this question as well. I think he really belives that a democratice Iraq will give America a good face in the Mid-East that will slowly change the impression after many years. He has been right so far that the area didn't erupt into Anti-American riots as many people predicted and no major terrorism has yet occured. Hopefully it will continue as such.
No major terrorism (Score:3, Insightful)
They might have a different perspective to you.
Re:Legal? (Score:2, Interesting)
DARPA project? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is old news, but somehow those things manage to remain fairly hidden, and just resurface once in a while. Esp. when America is at war, and people are just focused on Iraq news.
why not be honest about it (Score:2, Insightful)
And why the hell is USA trying to give democracy and liberty to other nations? USA doesn't have enough of that for themselves. They should concentrate on cherishing the little democracy and liberties they have, for it
Hardly Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully the citizens of USA will realise what is happening and either overthrow the government that is doing this against them, or leave the country behind on a permanent basis.
For being a country striking its chest and proclaiming to be the only true democracy in the world, USA is one of the most un-free countries in the world considering the continuous manipulation of its citizens to ensure that no-one speaks up too loudly against what is going on.
Just my 0.02 Euro
Re:Hardly Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
> Stores are only open 9am-8pm weekdays, and 11-4 (I think) Saturdays, never Sundays.
That's right but this is merely because people want it like that. Of course, many are embarrassed if he can't go shopping after 8pm - but on the other hand, people just want it like that. To me, this is a democratic decision.
> Owning a store or restaurant requires gov approval.
This is also right, but there is quite a consensus about this.
> You cannot fire them unless they commmit a working violation like stealing from the office.
This is not quite true: If someone steals, he can be fired immediately. If someone is incompetent or lazy or there is simply not enough work, he also can be fired - but normally he has to be told 3 month beforehand.
You are right that employing people and firing them is not that easy like in the US, but employees are somehow happy about their rights.
> no one wants to hire handicapped personnel
Well - why would someone hire handicapped personnel in the US if he can choose?
You are probably right that a lot of things are over-regulated and that a lot of unneccessary bureoucracy is taking place in Europe. But on the other hand people simply want social security here, for this convenience these regulations are somehow the price you have to pay.
To me, democracy happens if well informed and uninfluenced citizens choose freely between several options. I think this is happening in Europe better than in the US, espacially if you focus on "well informed and uninfluenced".
It's true that the US is one of the first nations in the world who successfully built a democratic system. Nevertheless my primary critics are that ~ 60% of the US citizens never make use of the democracy and secondary that many people are either not well informed or misled by politicians.
Moreover I wonder why they never managed it to true secularization.
Re:Hardly Surprising (Score:2)
Why work in McDonalds for $6/hr when you can get $5/hr 'looking for a job'?
Hah! (Score:5, Funny)
You are either with us or against us.
Problem solved (Score:5, Funny)
After all, this is exactly what they've done with Guatemalan Bay and the "Unlawful Combatants".
Re:Problem solved (Score:2, Interesting)
Guantanamo Bay. Or Gitmo for short.
Guatamala is a totally different country in which the US sent in "advisors" during the 70s and 80s in the contemporary "war against communism".
Correction (Score:2)
Data Mining accuracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if we scale this up I can almost see the US goverment getting more accurate but not without have a lot of false positivies. Scary prospect..
Rus
Re:Data Mining accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really see that as "scary" - think about it: the people you buy stuff from know what stuff they sell to you. This has been true of shopkeepers for as long as they have existed! It's only a recent anomaly that shops became so large and impersonal that you dealt with a different person each time; 50 years ago, you would buy your meat from a butcher, who would simply remember what meat you bought last time. Granted, the database has a better memory for detail, but it isn't doing anything new: it's doing the same old thing, slightly better than before.
I'm a little more concerned about the idea of the government harvesting and combining all this kind of data, of course. Might that pack of CDRs I bought last month one day be a purchase that would flag me "potential pirate"?
Having said that, I'm reminded of the law requiring London taxi drivers to carry a bale of hay with them at all times. The law was passed back when taxis were horse-drawn, to ensure the horse was always properly fed; when taxis became horseless, the law stopped being enforced. These days, it's increasingly easy to enforce laws thoroughly - look at speed cameras, anti-theft tags in stores, CCTV. Previously, law enforcement had some built-in "slack": the police wouldn't bother chasing and stopping a driver doing 31 in a 30 limit - but with an automated camera, what's to stop them setting the trigger speed at 31 and sending out automated fines?
Really, we'll need some "housekeeping" done on laws. (The "hay in taxis" one was repealed a few years ago, by the way.) Instead of the law setting strict limits on behavior - in the knowledge they cannot be enforced strictly -as written - laws will have to define and justify the prohibitions much more precisely and thoroughly.
Ideally, we'd see a constitutional amendment (or equivalent) of "no crime without victim" - out go all the silly laws, from the "hay in taxis" law to restrictions on consenting sexual acts (Texas!). How on earth can you justify making something a crime, when you cannot show that it harms anybody?
Re:Data Mining accuracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Lie.
Seriously. They just lie about it. For example, in Virginia, our "crimes against nature" sodomy laws have been attacked each year with a bill to repeal them. When the bill comes up, several reps argue loudly that it will make pedophilia and incest legal. It's a blatent lie, but it seems to work each year.
Same thing happened when GHB became illegal federally. Link [disinfo.com]
Subvert the system (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Data Mining accuracy (Score:4, Informative)
This study was really one of those government-funded studies that's always in progress. They just send some guys out to buy the same exact products from several stores in local communities. The big news in the last couple of years is that prices at stores (in my area) like FoodMax and Publix are, on the whole, about 30% cheaper than prices at Kroger or Food Lion. Even the discount savings using the card only knocks off about 10% of the average total bill.
(I do not have the data to back this up; these numbers are recalled to the best of my memory. This means that the best this post can do is get you to think about it and investigate it. I've already done so for myself, and I've made my decision about it. I only use my store cards to purchase alcohol and condoms.)
Re:Data Mining accuracy (Score:2)
Seems to show a nation fighting itself (Score:2)
Shows a nation with inconsistent data protection laws more like.
But then I in the EU where we actually have some DP laws so...
it was not your planes on 911 (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:it was not your planes on 911 (Score:2)
Same category as foreign interrogation (Score:5, Insightful)
This 'we-can't-do-it-as-a-government-so-we'll-do-it-el
Re:Same category as foreign interrogation (Score:2)
Reading between the lines, I'll assume that CSIS is getting sick of doing an ever increasing amount of dirty work for the CIA. Thus the US gov are looking for alternative methods.
Re:Same category as foreign interrogation (Score:2)
No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
New Zealand is also one of the few countries that is positioned to intercept satellite communications in the southern hemisphere, which makes this even more important to the US.
So this is not new, My guess is that US industry has successfully lobbied the US government because , despite those pesky constitutional issues, they feel it is 'Unamerican' to give the business of monitoring it's citizens to foreign nations.
Re:No surprise (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No surprise (Score:2)
Or maybe just tell the French secret service that all those boats in Auckland harbor belong to Greenpeace...
Cool, SETI @ HOME V 2.0 (Score:2)
We can all get a "Search for Extreme Terrorist Intelligence" screen saver.
Outrageous & Believable (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Error Rate on the databases
Even an error rate of 0.1% equals 280,000 "wrong" people. I don't have the time to look up credit reporting errors, but I seem to recall they are somewhere in the DOUBLE DIGITS. So, in reality, we are looking at MILLIONS of people.
B) End run on existing laws
While the government is not allowed to collect this data (laws are being changed as we speak -- Patriot II), do you really think this is stopping the Bush/Rumsfeld/Ashcroft junta from being "creative"??
C) Gullibility & manipulation of truth
The population will succumb to the continued brainwashing of this administration. Fear is a powerful motivator to give up things. Remember, we went to war to destroy weapons of mass destruction. According to Bush, we already control 95% of Iraq, but where are the WMD? If they would have found some, don't you think we would have heard it by now?
What about the 9/11 investigation about what the government knew before? I'll bet we know about the cause of the shuttle disaster long before we hear anything on 9/11.
And the mainstream media will not run with any of the stories since the already HAVE BEEN "embedded" with the government through their corporate ties.
Bottom Line:
We're all fucked.
New twist on an :1old scam (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, you should have started worrying a long time ago. This is a continuation of the slow but steady erosion of personal privacy.
The US intelligence services are very resourceful. When previously faced with a similar problem, namely that US law prevented domestic spying, they simply outsourced the problem to the intelligence services of friendly nations, who collected data on US citizens and gave it back to the US government. The service was 'paid for' by offering to reciprocate. This is called Echelon [echelonwatch.org], and is operating to this day.
While probably technically legal, the spirit of the law is being broken, and there's absolutly no oversight beyond what's uncovered by inquisitive journalists.
What we're seeing here is a variation of the same theme, except that now the US intelligence services are using private companies to do the leg work. In fact, much of the leg work has already been done legally by companies as part of the 'normal' business activities.
As usual the government is claiming that the data will never be misused. What I find most astounding is that the general public doesn't react.
But don't worry, the US democracy is self-correcting. It just may take a while. You kids will look back at this and wonder how it could ever have happened, just like we look back at the 50's and senator Joe McCarthy.
Guess what? This is the... (Score:5, Insightful)
A government working closely with private institutions to seek and maintain control over its populace.
That is THE basic definition of a fascist system. Just like pre-nazi germany, our leader seeks to maintain greater control over us with surveillance and fear tactics...
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the counrtry to danger. It works the same in any country"
-Hermann Goering. Hitler's designated successor, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials.
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier--there's no question about it."
-G.W. Bush 8/6/01 (It may be out of context, but... there you go)
Re:Guess what? This is the... (Score:2)
Read history. Stop listening to America
Re:Guess what? This is the... (Score:2)
The Goering quote was: All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the counrtry to danger.
Bush has very much performed actions like this. German leaders (Hitler) yelled long and loud about how much Poland was a threat to the German nation, even though Germany had much
Article from Reuters (Score:2, Informative)
Sun March 30, 2003 09:43 AM ET
Privacy is a condition, not a right (Score:5, Insightful)
What we buy, where we go, where we live, and a great many other detials about our lives are not private; they are facts that are available to anyone who might be interested, and we have no God-given right to get upset if somebody collects them. We are not private entities, we are social entities, and that means that only those things that we deliberately hide are private: if we lock our secrets away, encrypt our messages, act so as to mislead anyone who MIGHT be watching, then we have privacy. But privacy is a condition, not a right.
There is no statement in the Bill of Rights, no part of the US Constitution that deals with privacy, because the fact of privacy has always been correctly recognized to be a state that is totally up to the individual to create regarding his affairs.
Now what you do in the sanctity of your residence is something else again, as the Constituion makes very clear: you are protected against unreasonable searches, for example. This reflects the feeling that "a man's home is his castle," a very English sentiment. It also expresses a concern for property rights. The framers of the Constitution could not justify denying protection from unreasonable searches to renters, but they were not defining privacy when they limited police power by placing it under judicial control (the court, not the police agency, issues the warrant to search).
The courts have presumed an aspect of privacy in their attitude toward abortion, however, and if this is extended, we may see a judicial effort to define privacy. It really should be done by Congress, if it is to be done. There is no constitutional concept of privacy, but that could be changed through constitutional amendment.
At present, the laws restrict the government from doing some things that any private citizen is free to do legally. This is the approach found in the Constitution: it clearly states that "Congress shall make no law..." and so on. It does not say that other entities, other than Congress, shall be restricted from, for example, limiting free speech. (Only after the Civil War were the restrictions on the federal Congress extended to the state legislatures. There for a while, the federal government could not do what the states could, and did.) We are, in other words, on solid legal ground with our current attitude toward privacy. And yes, it does seem to me illegal for the government to contract for private companies to do what the government is forbidden to do! "I won't bite you, but my dog will."
As for paranoia, it seems to me that the folks who are throwing a hissy-fit about data mining are the paranoids. Much ado about darn little, as I see it. But suppose the public disagrees with me. Well, if there is to be a comprehensive definition of privacy, along with an assertion that it is a fundamental human right -- so far there really is nothing substantial in this area -- it is up to the voters to tell their government what to do. Does anyone actually think the legislators would resist such a request from the public? There are many precedents to show that they would not, Prohibition and its repeal being just one. We can and will change the Constitution as we see fit, period.
One thing seems likely, IMHO: privacy is a legal area in which we need to spend some serious thought before we act. And our first act might well be to stop the government from hiring firms to do for it what it is not allowed to do itself.
For now, however, the basic situation is very simple: if you want privacy, then take the steps necessary to get it. You are able to select those aspects of your life you wish to hide from public view, and you will be able to do a very good job indeed of misleading the "Watchers."
So go to it, you nervous conspiracy theorists: hide from Them. After all, They are listening every time you call, aren't They? They a
Re:Privacy is a condition, not a right (Score:2)
If you think that's okay that the government can find and threaten dissent, then whatever, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean their not after you.
Re:Privacy is a condition, not a right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Privacy is a condition, not a right (Score:4, Insightful)
True, privacy isn't a right, but what you're missing here is the issue. Why does the U.S. exist as it is? Because the framers of the constitution realized that a necessary part of government is change, and that change needs to be driven by the governed, and not the governers...
The main reason that privacy is important is that there needs to be a distinguishment between agencies of governmental change, and traitors. When there is the chance that you will be branded an enemy of the state (Terrorist), because of your desire to drive change, that is when your privacy is important.
The framers wanted to protect the rights of the people to be in control of government, which is why they valued such things as privacy in the home (No illegal search/seizure), and the right to bear arms (an armed populace is not a captive populace. And I do mean populace, as being armed doesn't prevent an individual from capture, but it's kind of hard to control the majority with a select few if the majority can defend themselves as a whole.)
For the first time in the history of America, it is now legal for the people in positions of power to abduct an agent of change under whatever auspices they choose, and not be held accountable for it, since they don't have to tell anybody, don't have to charge anyone, etc. [This has been done before, it's just the first time it's been legal.]
So, yes, you should be afraid! You should be trying to prevent this from happening! You should value your privacy! If you want to retain control of your own government, than you have to fight! If you don't, than soon those in positions of power will HAVE the power, rather than just WIELDING the power as an agent of the population...
Private Military Too? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't understand why it is that when a company enters into a work contract they are not held to the same standards of the employer.
infomation brokering... (Score:2, Insightful)
there are other corp data collection systems that don't even pay, but that's another story? poeple worry about the dept of homeland defense knowing what you watch, but the satalite companies know and (i suspect) will sell it to whoever wants to be a business partner.
e
Miranda? Had to lay her off. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chief Justice Thomas won't have a problem with that - it's not strictly proscribed, so let it rip!
Oppression by Proxy (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way out of this is to monitor what information goes out. Don't do business with unethical companies, pay with cash when possible, etc. This kind of monitoring won't stop smart criminals -- it just keeps the population on a leash.
This is why gov utilities SHOULD give net access. (Score:2)
What can be done? (Score:2, Informative)
The problem we ar having is
My Proffessor is in on this... (Score:3, Informative)
It's not any more legal to contract it out. (Score:3, Insightful)
Inquisition (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:DUKE NUKEM 3D SOURCE CODE RELEASED! (Score:2)
Sorry you were modded offtopic but I diffinetly encourage everyone to submit this as a story to the slashdot editors. This is a big deal like the release of the original doom.
But since this is brand spanking new, how did anyone get this to compile under linux? There is alot of dos specific sound driver code. Maybe under dosemu( the old caldera now cursed sco dos emulator)?
To play this again on my Windows2k box or in my gentoo box would rock!
Re:DUKE NUKEM 3D SOURCE CODE RELEASED! (Score:2)
Re:So what are you going to do? (Score:2)