Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy United States

MATRIX Database Schema Altered Due to Privacy Concerns 101

Posted by michael from the matrix-treats-privacy-laws-as-obstacles-and-routes-around-them dept.
nusratt writes "Associated Press: 'The Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange combines state vehicle and crime records with commercial databases owned by a private company, Seisint, covering half the U.S. population,' but there were 'questions about the legality of sending state-owned records to Seisint'. The solution? "Each state will maintain its own records . . . Software will search each state's records as necessary.' 'The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MATRIX Database Schema Altered Due to Privacy Concerns More

MATRIX Database Schema Altered Due to Privacy Concerns

Comments Filter:

  • NFG, Really. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @02:04PM (#9790047) Homepage Journal
    Each state will maintain its own records . . . Software will search each state's records as necessary. The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.

    I am a programmer and let me just say that this is a really bad idea. Why? Because it's always a bad idea to design a large system that acts like a server but essentially is only a client.

    Each state running their own version of the system, operating independently of the other states, will only ensure that the system could become easily corruptible (both criminally and data corrupted), without anyone higher examining the system for audits, outside of audits applied to the individual systems.

    It's actually better to have one system and have multiple clients to the system with downgraded permissions, so that a team can go through and audit the whole system easier.

    Now I'm not saying I'm all for Seisint holding the keys. Really the government should run this system themselves and hire the right people for the job, with the adequate level of security clearance to do the work. But diffracting a system into multiple independent systems operating on roughly the same premise, is not going to make it any better. It's going to cause lots of problems and I can foresee the following results without much effort, even:

    1. Some states will apply problematic functions to the system.
    2. Zero data cohesion for audits over the multiple systems.
    3. Easier to corrupt state driven systems than federal ones.
    4. Criminal activity changes jurisdiction (ie: no longer federal crime, perhaps?)
    5. Bugs cropping up in one state won't be present in another.
    6. Fifty times the cost of maintaining the systems; the guys doing this, just multiplied their haul by the number of states involved, instead of getting paid one lump sum to do the fsking job.
    7. Social Engineers can break into state-run systems much easier, because they don't have to travel half way across the country to get in.
    8. Criminals are now able to falsify criminal information like on that horrible movie The Net [imdb.com]!
    9. Awareness of a fragmented system is not enough to safeguard privacy.
    • You forget: A state system has a higher chance of being `administered' by $12/h college interns :-)

    • Re:NFG, Really. (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Luguber123 ( 203502 )
      Tho there is a alot to gain in making one coherent system diversity have also proven to give good results, if the operator got a mind of him own that is.
      Google works pretty well for digging out information even tho there is no coherent underlying structure, there may be duplicate information, but there are posibilities to optimize such a system for a specific task, delegating control over information where it belongs rather than having anyone with a "security clearance" on the planet beeing able to tamper w
      • Anybody remember that Max Headroom episode? Centralised systems can lead to all sorts of scary situations. Seems to me that the most benefit that can be accrued from this type of system accrues to those in a position to abuse it.

    • Re:Nobody said freedom was cheap (Score:4, Insightful)

      by symbolic ( 11752 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @03:58PM (#9790604)

      If the government can routinely blow 10's of billions of dollars on a war that wasn't justified, it can fork over a little extra to make sure the citizens are protected from unnessary, centralized, control over massive amounts of data on U.S. Citizens. We already KNOW ahat happens when so much data is centralized under the control of one entity- just ask almost anyone who has had their identity stolen.

      Even having said all this, I think that this MATRIX idea is a waste of money. Nobody knows what a "terrorist" looks like in terms of their spending habits. It's entirely possible that there is no discernible difference. There is plenty of room, however, to flag false positives, as has already been shown with the fed's "no fly" list. Because some of the stuff I've heard is really rather rediculous, I have no inclination to trust the fed with any more data on U.S. citizens than it had before 9/11.

      • Your logic is both correct and short-sighted at the same time. Yes, you can't pinpoint a "terrorist" on the basis of spending alone - just because I walk into a hardware store and buy a box cutter doesn't mean I am about to hijack the next plane I get onto. However, with sufficient data, a "terrorist" _can_ be distinguished from normal people - organisations across the globe have been doing it for years. However, when this information is fragmented, it really is useless.

        A useful analogy is that in marketin

    • It's actually better to have one system and have multiple clients to the system with downgraded permissions, so that a team can go through and audit the whole system easier.

      I agree with the idea of a single system, however all the data is coming from multiple (i.e. owned by the individual states), assuredly heterogeneous systems. Each state stores their data in their own way, and they undoubtedly have clients that depend on their particular system, schema, etc.

      While access auditing may be easier in a

  • Another way to get around privacy laws (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shivantrill ( 654978 ) * on Saturday July 24, 2004 @02:08PM (#9790071)
    Yay!!

    Another way for my illegitimate government to sidestep legitimate state data laws to invade my privacy.

    When will this madness stop? Europe is way ahead of the US when it comes to personl privacy.

    Flame on if you wish. I for one am ...

    Mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!!
    Cue television throwing scene

  • The matrix... has you?

    Sorry, couldn't resist!

  • too much paperwork. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by DruidBob ( 711965 )
    'The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.' Arn't there laws about that?
    • 'The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.' Arn't there laws about that?


      It is, regrettably, quite difficult to outlaw attempts to comply with the law. :)
  • So the data will all be in one centeral database, but each state will have software that will only allow them to access information about people in there state? I wouldnt really call that secure (any more secure then it all ready might be) if the only thing keeping states from viewing other states data is a few pramatters in the application. What they really should do is have each state have then own databases, that way, when one of them gets compromised (cause it will happen) only some data will be taken
  • ....between sending the records to them and letting them search them at will? The data privacy laws SHOULD be written to make either one of them a no-no. Also, does anyone know which half of the U.S. population they cover? EX

  • "Get around obstacles (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 0x0d0a ( 568518 )
    'The new setup is designed to get around obstacles in some states' data laws.'"

    Yeah, damn those data-privacy-protecting obstacles! They do nothing but aid "the terrorists"!

  • Fourth Amendment "Obstacles" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Grue ( 3391 ) * on Saturday July 24, 2004 @02:24PM (#9790169) Homepage
    Read this statement from the article carefully:

    The new setup is designed to allow for more frequent updates of the information and get around obstacles in some states' data laws, Zadra said

    Yes, that's right, those pesky laws designed to protect your privacy are "obstacles" that are getting in the way.

    *sigh*
    • That's really fascinating. For instance, maybe state A has a law against storing information X about people. However, in the Matrix network, is there any thing to prevent them from requesting that data from another state where it's allowed to be stored? And if there is a constant connection, it wouldn't be different from storing it locally.

      I'm sure one could argue that the local computer loading the data into RAM constitutes 'storing' it, but I don't think the people involved are particularly worried abo

      • "is there any thing to prevent them from requesting that data from another state where it's allowed to be stored?"

        That's the real point. Everyone connected will still be able to get to the same data, from ANY other states. It's just a shell game, to circumvent privacy regulations, by not "storing" the data in Seisint.
      • This is how the NSA Echelon system works.

        The NSA is prohibited from using US NSA employees from listening in on US citizens.

        So they get the UK Echelon employees to do it.

        Not to mention that they want the laws prohibiting the CIA from doing domestic intelligence, and the military Posse Commitatus laws to be removed in the name of "efficiency in fighting terrorism".

        It's so fraggin' obvious what's up that only rightwing morons like Rush and O'Reilly and the nerdboys on /. who buy into it.

        It's like the mod
    • Last time I checked, the Fourth Amendment wasn't a "State Law". Get a clue and stop rewording what others have said.
      • Check out Article VI, Clause 2 of the constitution:

        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
        • What is your point? Read the article. There are laws at the "State Level" that would "obstruct" creating a database spanning State-lines. So, like good citizens, they're looking to obey the law. I know that is a contrarian concept for some liberal's incessent dogma about life, the universe, and everything.

          But, we forgive you, because when most liberals read the word "State", they think about their bygone ideals of Stalinist and Maoist regimes, whose combined might of idealism killed tens of millions of pe
  • Post 9-11 there were many ways for the government to cut down on the possibility of terrorist attacks that had nothing to do with restricting the rights of the American people or the majority of legal resident aliens. The government could easily have shut down the borders with the military and ordered the deportation of all Saudi citizens from the country.

    But no, the government would rather go after women who are 8 months pregnant, senior citizens and everybody else who is as far away from the profiled gro

    • Politically correct? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Wrexs0ul ( 515885 )
      The problem stems from terrorism being color-blind and without nationality. We can evict as many Saudis, Mexicans, or Germans as we like and there'll still be someone who wants to hurt others. Look at the Oklahoma bombing case: McVeigh was as white as any "fellow citizen" yet still managed to blow up a building...

      There were obvious shortcomings in the way security was handled before 9/11. While I don't think a national identification system will help neither will evicting a nationality or race from western
    • What an ignorant flamebait! This goes way farther than "Political correctness".

      Just for starters, with your line of thinking, any religious cult after Oklahoma should have been deported or put in a concentration camp.

      But to get really serious with what you are saying, let me tell you that not all saudi's are guilty of terrorist activities. In fact, Guess What? Most of them are not.

      The "world power" as you call it, should be powerful enough to know better than to go around exterminating arabs. The "world

    • It isn't racist to look at someone from a group that has blown up over 3,000 civilians and say "out of my country..."

      It is if you make your decisions about whether they're in the group based on their appearance! The vast majority of people of any race are not terrorists.

      If you can tell, simply by looking, whether a person is a terrorist, you have a unique and valuable talent. The FBI would love to talk to you!

      • Actually, no, the FBI would NOT like to talk him if he really COULD identify terrorists by appearance.

        That would really screw up the FBI's ability to ignore threats long enough for them to actualize.

        Just ask Sibel Edmonds.

        I mean, if the FBI were actually EFFECTIVE, their budget might be cut.

        And that would hurt somebody's career and GS rating.

    • Well first of all, there is of course the fact that while a small minority of Saudis and Muslims are willing to murder thousands of American citizens, that doesn't mean every one of them is. Thus to judge the entire group based on the actions a few would, by definition, be prejudice.

      But lets forget that and go with your theory, shall we? Any ethnic group from which hateful mass murderers have come from must leave now. Lets see...

      • Arabs, as you noted, are already out.
      • Hispanics include some drug deal
      • The Native American nations wish to collectively thank you, and to add that they have never hated America, at least as it was before all you new guys moved in. All hateful mass murderers among the NAN would like to point out that they were directing their "innate ethnic exuberance" against people who were not real Americans at all, mostly Europeans within a mere generation or three. They will however agree to leave, just so we send them back to their homeland.
        Jeffery Dalmer would also like to say, (spe

    • It would take a constant ready force of 120000+ troops to guard the US borders with Mexico and Canada, with troops spaced 100 M apart.

      Multiply that times 3 because troops can only guard 80 hours or so a week to be effective. And multiply by 3 again to include officers, support & logistics personnel.

      So it would take a constant standing force of nearly 1 million to "close the US borders." That's a huge chunk of our military, and a huge chunk of change per day. Completely impractical.

    • Order the deportation of all Saudi Citizens? Have you considered that Saudi Arabia is one of our closest allies in the middle east? Not to mention a very important source of oil? Put aside PC thought for a second, and consider the diplomatic and geopolitical ramifications of villainizing that people? That people, the vast majority of whom have not attacked America? Why not just send them an open letter and ask them to join Al Qaeda and to stop selling us oil?

      As for your analogy with the other world power
    • Chalk all this up to political correctness. Certain groups make damn sure that no one ever gets offended from now on otherwise someone might make someone else cry. It's happening in schools with certain games not being allowed anymore because they don't want kids being "left out" or whatever and it's happening clear up to the real life level of going after everyone who could be targeting our country instead of those people who we know could be. The gay lifestyle is being celebrated because certain groups
    • Of course, you can still bring 2 cigarette lighters and 4 books of matches on planes. Mix them together and you could blow out a window or something on an airplane. Dangerous stuff, but the government hasn't cracked down. Idiots.

  • Information has always had a degree of publicness. Many different types of government records are public, meaning that the public has a right to access them.

    Of course in the past this meant digging through stacks of books in a basement somewhere or waiting weeks for someone else to do it for you. This certainly made those records less "public", in that they required more effort to retrieve.

    This degree of publicness is rapidly changing with electronically stored info which is very searchable and comparab

    • I can deal with government record-keeping of citizens -- it's just one of those things of modern American life.

      But I really don't like the idea of a private company being the proprietor of public records, seeing as they have a buffer from being accountable to the general public.

  • re: "Europe is way ahead in protecting privacy" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nusratt ( 751548 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @02:29PM (#9790197) Journal
    "Europe is way ahead of the US when it comes to personal privacy."

    I also used to think so -- until the EU caved to the U.S. and agreed to start regularly sending all of the EU's travel records to the U.S.

    Start following the news on things being done by the EU bureaucracy -- sometimes covertly and against the explicit wishes of the citizenry. Read the handwriting on the wall: more and more, the dominance of the U.S. -- militarily, culturally, politically and economically -- is poisoning the rest of what used to be called the "Free World".

    The evolution from the former European "Common Market" for easing trade frictions, to an EU with wider powers -- political powers -- is destined to be recognized someday as a grave error and a disaster for human rights.

  • Call a Horse a Horse (Score:3, Interesting)

    by CygnusXII ( 324675 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @02:30PM (#9790206)
    Getting around a States data Laws is Computer Crime.
    Plain and Simple. Engineering the System to circumnavigate the laws, wouldn't that be an Inducement to infringe Data, and somehow violate the New proposed Induce Laws? Or how about The DMCA, or better Yet HiPPA (sp?)
  • for example:

    -- Step #1: Seisint soon will be owned, controlled, and accessible by the European owners of LexisNexis.

    -- Step #2: the combination raises the possibility that a huge range of personal information held by LexisNexis could make its way into Matrix

    -- Step #3: the system could give law enforcement unprecedented access to details about innocent people

  • You may remember a toy that is filled with semi-jelled fluid and sparkley glitters of which when you squeeze it, it escapes your hand.

    I would rather have my financial records zip shut than anything else. To watch my bank's 100s of affiliates consolidate my financial activities into a single location of which is then squirted out with no compunction nor adherance to the law to many other places other than your usual uber-credit bureaus.

    Submitting your Privacy Act requests, no matter how complete, is like
  • Thank God I'm a Canadian then. The matrix has no hold over me.

    • Just as the EU has caved to USA demands for
      information on travelers from (and within)
      Europe, every country that has visa-less entry
      to the USA will have biometric passports, AND
      information on those travelers made available
      to the US authorities.

      If you never travel outside Canada, never do
      any business with USA companies, don't use
      any credit cards, have no criminal record (at
      all) then, and only then, might you NOT be in
      the MATRIX.

      The MATRIX has you, too!
  • You have nothing to fear if you're not doing anything wrong.

    For homework, your daughter is writing a report on the Middle East, and uses your library card to borrow books on Saudi Arabia.
    FBI records: INTEREST IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES

    You sell your old car for $7000, and then your motorcycle for $5000.
    FBI records: LARGE CASH DEPOSITS

    Your wife thinks she might have contracted malaria while overseas, so you look up the symptoms online.
    FBI records: INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL, RESEARCH INTO BIOLOGICAL AGENTS

    One d

    • Well said. Good examples. Don't forget the collorary, "He must have done something, or they wouldn't have arrested him."

    • All bold emphasis is mine.

      For homework, your daughter is writing a report on the Middle East, and uses your library card to borrow books on Saudi Arabia. preliminary FBI records: INTEREST IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES

      AFter further investigation they see that your daughter really is writing a school report.

      You sell your old car for $7000, and then your motorcycle for $5000. preliminary FBI records: LARGE CASH DEPOSITS

      After further investigation they see that you really did just sell 2 vehicles, just like mi

      • Except for the fact that we _know_ the ones running this system are human, and they _will_ make mistakes. And given a government with the position that suspected terrorists, even if they happen to be citizens, are to be held in violation of their civil rights, with no access to legal counsel, and that it's okay to torture/kill them to find out what they may know, that inevitably, significant numbers of innocent citizens will be imprisoned/tortured/killed because of the mistakes of the persons acting on the

    • but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

      The Failure to Speak Up Against the Nazis - Martin Niemoeller [jewishvirtuallibrary.org]

      Maybe you guys in the US need to start speaking out, as your government seems to be taking away your rights in the same manner. Eventually you won't

  • What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by no longer myself ( 741142 ) on Saturday July 24, 2004 @03:45PM (#9790547)
    Collecting this information may seem scary at first, but privacy isn't really lost. Just try finding your driver's license photo online, and unless you put it there yourself, you'll see that you're fairly well protected.

    The most harm that could come of this sort of system is the tendency for authorities to embarass you with such broad access to your history. Like the time the cop ran down my driving record after I denied speeding when he pulled me over for the offense. I already looked foolish enough to the passengers in my vehical, but it made me look even worse now that they knew every ticket I had for the past three years. Boy, did he ever put me in my place!

    So now they will have access to the websites you surf, the television you watch, the videos you rent, the foods you buy, the property you own, the banks you use, the crimes you've committed, the people you've met, the jobs you've held, the classes you've attended, the doctors you've seen, the diseases you've had, the opionions you've expressed, the sports you play, the religion you follow, the taxes you've paid, and so on, and so on...

    I guess the scariest part is when somebody else who meshes up with all the things you do and enjoy, happens to commit some kind of horrible atrocity. Now they run profiles through their database to determine other likely culprits for similar crimes, and lo- your name appears. You couldn't win the lottery, but you've won a free "closer inspection". But if you didn't do anything wrong, don't worry about it. You probably won't even know they were investigating you.

    It's easy to see where potential employers may also eventually have access to this information, and that's good too, because you wouldn't want to work with somebody who has a shady history now would you? Obviously, current employers need access to this information as well. Employees can be such a handful! Personal information can help you better manage them to make them more productive.

    Needless to say, one could only hope that banks will also be in line to have a shot at your personal info, because they need to know the spending habits of their clients in order to detect fraud. It's for your protection.

    Eventually many responsible corperations will have some degree of access to this information to better improve the comfort and security of their clients and associates. It will bring greater stability and certainty to the markets.

    And of course these records will always be available to local, state, and federal law enforcement for obvious beneficial reasons. It's much more effecient to investigators if they don't actually have to run around to investigate who, what, when, where, why, and how on a person's history. You can immediately establish links and let the obvious story fall into place. It's not as if you'll be denied a jury trial if it's a major offense.

    No... Only good can come of this so called "invasion of privacy" and the sooner it starts, the better.

    Note: Even when I play devil's advocate, this kind of thinking still scares the shit out of me, though I have no criminal history. Now can someone explain why that is?

    • "it's not as if you'll be denied a jury trial if it's a major offense."

      Tell that to the boys in Quantanamo who have been held for two years and only now the Supreme Court has said they need "some" representation.

      Or the US citizens who have been picked off the street and held incommunicado and without lawyers for months.

      And who knows what laws will get passed with "PATRIOT III" - which no doubt will be proposed as soon as Bush can get the next "terrorist incident" off the ground this fall.

      "Slippery slope
    • Uh, mods, this post is "funny", not "insightful".

      Well, I hope it is, anyway.
    • "Now can someone explain why that is?"

      It's your fucking FREEDOM nagging at you is what it is. Your entire post has to be one of the most depressing comments I've ever seen.

  • Take a look at my Sig (Score:5, Informative)

    by cyranoVR ( 518628 ) * <cyranoVR.gmail@com> on Saturday July 24, 2004 @04:15PM (#9790679) Homepage Journal
    A few weeks ago I attended the Fifth HOPE [hope.net] conferenece in New York City. While I was there, I saw Steven Rambam, a private investigator and former federal agent, give a presentation entitled "Privacy: It Ain't What It Used to Be." A better title would have been "Privacy is Already Dead."

    He started out by asking if anybody in the room (about 200+ tin-foil-hat wearing hackers) had ever heard of Seisent. Not a single hand went up, and he seemed to be genuinely suprised and disturbed by this.

    He made a very good point repeatedly throughout his presentation: we shouldn't be worried because Government has this data on us; no, we should be terrified because private corporations that don't even answer to the government have this data. And it's not just limited to name, address and telephone number: criminal records, addresses of residence, education, employers, telephone calls, magazine subscriptions, travel records, television viewing habits (if you have cable), internet downloads, gun ownership and voting records. Yes voting records - they know if you voted and what party you registered under.

    Suffice to say, these guys should be the household name, not the RIAA. Why does the media focus on the MPAA et al and their paltry lawsuits and not these guys?!?

    So I changed my sig to read "What is Seisint? [seisint.com]" and I tell everyone I know about them.

    Some have responded to me with ambivalence. "What's the big deal?" "Meh, they have the data, there's nothing we can do about it." I'm not sure how to respond to people like that except with "the dumber you are the happier you are" or something.

    What could they do with that data? Use your imagination, stupid.

    Rambam finished by giving a live demonstration of a smaller database of individual information that he owns (derived mostly public records). He demonstrated how quickly you could compile information on any random person with just their SSN - as it turned out, the "victim" he took from the audience was already a real victim of identity theft. The query took less that 10 seconds. It was pretty amazing / disturbing.

    During the Q&A portion of the presentation, several audience members asked what they could do to "get out" of the database. Rambam replied that there was nothing we could do: the data was now the property of this one private company - even the data that was collected from State governments (Aside from being one of the egregiou privacy invasions in human history, it was also one of the most gernerous corporate subsidizations ever).

    Rambam did say one thing we could do: "Vote, vote, vote." Private corporations have too many protections and powers compared to individuals, and Government is the only way to change that.

    The final questioner for the session had a very +5 Insightful comment on what everyone in the audience should do just in case the voting didn't work out:

    "Buy, and learn how to use, a rifle."

    The audience response to this comment was, of course, thunderous applause.
    • Given the Diebold voting machines, forget the vote.

      Go straight for the rifle.

      As we anarchists say, "Don't vote - it only encourages them." And "No matter who you vote for, the government gets into office." And "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal."

    • And it's not just limited to name, address and telephone number: criminal records, addresses of residence, education, employers, telephone calls, magazine subscriptions, travel records, television viewing habits (if you have cable), internet downloads, gun ownership and voting records. Yes voting records - they know if you voted and what party you registered under.

      Well duh, the question is do they know WHO I voted for?

      • Funny you should ask that question, because Rambam addressed it in his speech.

        Let's say you are a registerd republican, you own a subscription to Guns and Ammo, and you drive a Chevey Pickup (they'll know all this about you, by the way). They can't know exactly who you voted for...but within 95% accuracy they can guess.

        Of course, Diebold may change that refise that number upwards very shortly...
  • M ultistate
    A nti
    T error
    R ????
    I nformation
    e X change

    Do those multistates also have problem with their acronym generation capabilities?
    Are those acronyms generated by pimply-faced 14-year-old who want to look cool?
    Has ATR become a standard abbreviation for antiterror these days?

    Questions over questions, and I doubt the database will be of help here.

  • Four of the five states still in the MATRIX program (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio) are considered "battleground states". If you are in a political organization trying to get the Shrub out of office, here is a major opportunity, through educating your fellow citizens about MATRIX, to swing the election. To the Democrats, emphasize the privacy-invading concerns that you have, pointing out the similarity to the police state tactics used by Nixon in the Sixties. To the Republicans, emphasize the
  • The truth of the matter is that this is an excellent tool for law enforcement agencies to work together, period.

    The shit hits the fan when something happens and some other agency held the key evidence, or information that ultimately could have saved lives. What happens 6-9 monthes later after the person(s)/group gets caught?

    The puzzle gets put together, the media gets a piece of it and the public is screaming that their tax dollars are being wasted on antiquated systems that can't talk to one-another
  • I guess we've come to accept that every government, no matter how promising, will bite the dust and control every aspect of every citizen's life, till eventually those one or two saviors rise up and realize that, if nothing else, the government was right about one thing: Eventually you're going to have to kill someone to gain your freedom. ::Gives in and puts on a tinfoil hat::

    I guess they were right.

Slashdot Top Deals

To be awake is to be alive. -- Henry David Thoreau, in "Walden"

Close