OneDOJ to Offer National Criminal Database to Law Enforcement 184
Degrees writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Justice Department is building a massive database, known as 'OneDOJ'. The system allows state and local police officers around the country to search millions of case files from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies. The system already holds approximately 1 million case records and is projected to triple in size over the next three years. The files include investigative reports, criminal-history information, details of offenses, and the names, addresses and other information of criminal suspects or targets. From the article: 'Civil-liberties and privacy advocates say the scale and contents of such a database raise immediate privacy and civil rights concerns, in part because tens of thousands of local police officers could gain access to personal details about people who have not been arrested or charged with crimes. The little-noticed program has been coming together over the past year and a half. It already is in use in pilot projects with local police in Seattle, San Diego and a handful of other areas, officials said.'"
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the saying amongt traffic patrol officers: "follow someone long enough and he's bound to commit a traffic violation". Well, same thing with OneDOJ: collect enough information about someone and you're bound to find something to incriminate this person eventually.
Incidentally (and cutting short the Godwin Law), this is exactly what the Gestapo was doing prior to, and during WW2: they collected huge masses of information about everybody, and it was well know that they could pull a jacket on almost anybody in Germany and find enough "evidence" to arrest that person.
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Citizen Joe Smoe: "Senator Longbottom, I am a voter and concerned citizen and would like you to vote against this upcoming legislation that will further erode our privacy."
Senator Longbottom: "You know, I would give this privacy concern of yours more of my time, but hey, you illegally downloaded three songs this year and you have a pirated copy of Windows 98. You're a criminal and you want me to defend your privacy? Give me a break."
Re:About time (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes. I wish the public would get this. We're all criminals! To add someone to the database just find something and convict the, For the few who have managed to avoid breaking any of the multitude of laws (and how do you know you haven't there are so many), the laws will just continue to be piled up until there's something you will break whether its criminalising the smoking of relaxing substances or using a PGP key that hasn't been registered with the government. When needed, you will be a criminal. You may not even need to be convicted. There are thousands of DNA samples preserved by the UK police of people who were never convicted of anything and their names are on the police database.
And sepearate to the information on the crimes you may or may not have committed could be a lot of personal information that you may not wish to be searchable by the huge number of people that have access to this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
At least we don't shoot people for their "crimes". Yet.
Re: (Score:2)
At least we don't shoot people for their "crimes". Yet.
If you use the colloquial meaning of "shoot" (as in "shoot up"), yes we do. [wikipedia.org]
Up until 2004, Utah could impose death by firing squad as an execution sentence; the sentence is apparently still applicable to the few convicts that were sentenced before that moratorium and are still on death row.
So, if you were being ironic, ok. If you were being semi-ironic, well, ok. But in truth, we (our representatives in the government--all branches) do shoot people fo
Re:About time (Score:4, Informative)
What I was referring to was the classic "We have found out that you have committed crimes against the state, here is a gun. If you are still in the room when we come back in 2 minutes, we will shoot you and your whole family" line from the Gestapo. We're not QUITE there yet, but soon...
Re:About time (Score:4, Interesting)
Massive records gathering helped greatly to implement this program without public outcry. Whenever possible, political or religious opponents were actually arrested first for some crime, even if it was often very minor, and the public records showed them as serving time for other criminal acts rather than politically related acts. While court records may show that the person was primarily given a 10 year sentence for having publically spoken against Hitler, for example, they were whenever possible given additional charges, such as illegal weapons posession, hoarding of contraband, or other dangerous sounding or disreputable charges, even if these were mere three month midemeanors under German law. The press generally reported the sentences as being for one or two of the non-political crimes, and miscellanious other unspecified offenses.
Godwin's Law? (Score:2)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
The USSC has already established that local, state and federal government can accumulate information on people when it feels that such accumulation is in its interests, and further, that it can expose that information to the public, making a complete mockery of any idea of privacy.
The precedent was set using sex offenders and in particular, those sex offenders who had been convicted prior to the instantiation of the registry laws. Forcing those individuals to be on those lists was ruled "not punishment" and hence not subject to ex post facto as laid out in the constitution and subsequent court decisions.
Now the government can list anyone, anytime, on any list it likes, and there is nothing US citizens can do. Other lists have been showing up and causing trouble such as the no-fly list. Nothing anyone can do about that, either. Lists aren't a bad thing, according to every branch of the government.
The fact is, when US citizens gave up those freedoms to hand that little extra bit of crucifixion to sex offenders, you gave it up for everyone else, too. US citizens should have screamed bloody murder at the registry laws, you should have screamed bloody murder at any attempt at ex post facto punishment, and you should have screamed bloody murder at the USSC's ridiculous decision that "registry" is a local, state and federal interest.
The dead, smug silence at the fate of the sex offender - and the "terrorist" - has led the USA to a pitiful shadow of the freedom it once stood for. Sophistry has undermined ex post facto, habeas corpus, the commerce clause, the 2nd amendment, freedom of speech, and now... now you're worried about the feds sharing information. Good luck climbing back up that slope.
Re: (Score:2)
FYI, it's usually abbreviated SCOTUS, as in SCotUS.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we have politically correct acronyms?
Re: (Score:2)
18 USC 922(g)(8) and 18 USC 922(g)(9) are examples. 10 year sentence for violation (18 USC 924(a)(2)).
That's ex-post facto, since taking away the right to bear arms is a punishment, and this punishment (18 USC 922(g)(8) and 18 USC 922(g)9)) is being imposed on people even though it was not a punishment in force at the time of the act which resulted in the loss of the right to bear arms.
It would be like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ouch. This isn't a plus side. Shame, or at least remorse, is appropriate. For a reasonable length of time. Not a lifetime. In any case, the problem is that someone on these lifetime lists can't re-integrate into society, not because of shame, but because when there is a choice between two
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. I think the fact that people were put on them ex post facto is monumentally bad, and I think the reasoning that "registration is not punishment" is utterly unsound, and I think the trend towards calling everyone from your basic person attracted to 16...18-year old bodies to the fellow who pees in a bush to streakers "sex offenders" is nothing less than stupid, and I think the "you can never get off this list" is downright suicidal behavior for socie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we know there's never been cops that work for organized crime or, maybe perhaps running their own enterprise. Now, they will have the ability to expand operations in a massive way.
I agree with your general principal, that law enforcement agencies need to work together more easily, but this should be accomplished through IT standards and a legislative agenda. We've got NIST to do this kind of thing. Banks in the U.S. have done thi
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You must be joking. Have you not read the Constitution?
Re:Banks and Cops (Score:2)
I would argue banks have similar powers though. For example, the bank can and will adjust your balance due to their claiming an accounting error. The burden is on me to prove their corrections are wrong. My wife photocopies the checks she deposits because she got burned by the bank on this one repeatedly. It's not literal life and death, but it's almost as important. Money is one of the ve
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps all police personnel files should be shared with Wal*Mart while we are at it. the discount on uniform purchase (sale on Jack Boots for example) would certainly offset any security concern of sharing home addresses with minimum wage earning clerks with possible previous criminal re
About Space (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On a smaller scale, this happened to a friend of mine. He got stopped for speeding, and they ran his plates and found out that he had an outstanding speeding ticket in the state capitol. They held him for like four hours while the state capitol's police department decided whether or not to send a bus for him. At the time, I thought this was very wrong. Just imagine this for a speeding ticket in Alaska when the person lives in Florida or something. Imagine something like a week in handcuffs on a bus ov
Useful Cause (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Like Crimnet (Score:2)
This looks like a great opportunity for terrorists, many of whom have better technical resources that the feds.
Re: (Score:2)
Before You Panic ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes you think it will need to be hacked? You can go right on the web and check to see if your neighbor is a sex offender today. The information isn't secret or restricted. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The government thinks you should know. Odds are excellent they'll think you should know if your neighbor is a mugger or a thief or a drug user or a mad bomber as well. Or... if they might be at some point in the future! After all, you did buy b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You can go right on the web and check to see if your neighbor is a sex offender today.
And what if he isn't? He could still be in there because it was (wait for it) hacked.
Re: (Score:2)
Privacy vs. Protection? (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an age-old question, and one that will never be answered, I'm afraid. Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies? How is this different than local police creating their own database of case files? What does it mean to have the right to privacy? These are questions that have never fully been answered, I'm afraid. The first problem is that the US Constitution currently does not , and yet it's the one right that we constantly want protected. [usconstitution.net]
The other problem is that, even if the Constitution guaranteed the right to privacy, it would only guarantee that right to it's citizens. If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates [wsu.edu]. But is that so? Has that been determined? I am unaware of any court case or legislation that guarantees the citizenship of convicted criminals, nor of any that revokes their citizenship.
I think the first thing that needs to be done with regards to privacy concerns is to amend the constitution to allow for the right to privacy. Once this is complete, then the privacy advocates will have a platform on which to base their objections that is rooted within the Constitution. From there, other concerns can be addressed, such as the citizenship status of convicted criminals.
That being said, I support any collaboration between law enforcement agencies in protecting the citizenry, and do not see any abuses that have not already been in place since Government has been in place. The question is, are there any statistical evidence to support the collaboration in the apprehension and conviction of law breakers vs. the eventual mistakes and abuses that are feared?
Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with creating a permanent criminal class is that there is no possibility of redemption or reform. The only reasonable path is to have two, and only two, classes of crimes. The unredeemable, in which case imprisonment is life without parole, or death; and the redeemable, where the criminal's debt to society is considered 100% paid upon completion of the assigned punishment or rehabilitative course.
By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.
Today, a background check is considered normal in order to get a job. This includes your criminal records, if any. If you have a criminal record, you're not going to get any job for which there is competition (in other words, most of them.) You're a permanent criminal, unredeemable, permanently evil and a bottom-feeder.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not forget that when we combine the redeemable and unredeemable in the same facility (not that I really believe that anyone out there is literally unredeemable, but the
Re: (Score:2)
The system actually encourages this kind of thinking by making sure that your job, possessions, friendships, future employability, finances and family relationships all suffer to their very limits, as well as
Re: (Score:2)
This is a dead-certain way to get searched, just so you know. If you want to take this approach, you need a hidden video camera and sensitive microphones in your cabin and all around the exterior of your car, as well as a thoroughly and professionally hidden recording system. Which will serve you well in court, but only one time. Because the fact that you pulled this off will circulate through the entire police force in about a day. Perhaps even the [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No. All he has to do is say you didn't refuse.
Re: (Score:2)
This situation is typically far too limited for a lawyer to resolve. You claim you did not consent; the cop says you did, in one word: "yes." Now, how many "holes" do you think can be punched into that story? Seriously? The cops stick to their side, you stick to yours.
Now, consider this: If you had something to hide -- say, the cops found (or "found", since you pissed them off) some contraband. Just how long do you think the court will spend on that single declaration of
Re: (Score:2)
You want that recording to go to the local paper and radio station, to youtube, and to digg. Not the court. You want everyone in the entire state or province to know those cops lied. It is the only way you can leverage power of your own. In a courtroom, you have none, and I maintain that if you do not record, you had best meekly and mildly conform to any request for a search. Otherwise you will learn how unequal the bal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.
How do you determine that someone has no hope? How do you know that the motivation for their crimes is you? You seem to know an awful lot about this person whom you've condemned as unredeemable person. I agree that a pattern of behaviour says a lot, and a person's criminal record should be considered while they are on trial. However, I don't see that justice is improved by assigning a punishment other than the one that fits the crime just because of their past difficulties. 6 armed robbery convictions sho
Re: (Score:2)
I observe that society will not let them have any job that is not utterly menial; I observe, particularly in the case of sexual offenders who are listed for life, that they can never assume that the look they just got from the old lady next door isn't brimming with hatred, that they are proscribed from living in various areas (which may be entire towns) and I observe that society is so willing to commit these people to the bottom-most rung of existence tha
Re: (Score:2)
I've met plenty of people who are just permanently, by choice of repeated behaviors, petty losers and minor offenders. It would be counterproductive and horrendously expensive to lock them all up for life, but they should be flagged by the system so those of us who want to avoid hiring them in a position of trust can do so.
They don't rate being considered redeemed, because they are not and will not be redeemed.
They don't rate life in Supermax either.
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, I have high confidence it could be.
The people you describe are, by definition in my view, redeemable in the sense that they can repay the consequences of their acts. This is because their acts are petty, and repayment can always be made to society for a petty act. Money, property, work product. If they re-offend, further payment can be extracted, ad infinitum. To be unredeemable, one must transcend the petty in the first place so that repayment is impossible (t
ObLOTR (Score:4, Funny)
OneDOJ to bring them all and in the darkness remand them
To the Land of Maricopa where the Arpaio [wikipedia.org] lie.
Hmmm (Score:2)
Problematic (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem I see with this is that it encourages local police to target people (someone who gets pulled over for speeding) on the assumption that if the Feds investigated them, then they must be criminals. I tell all of my DUI clients that if they have been convicted once of DUI, they should never ever drive within ten hours of drinking ANY alcohol for the rest of their lives. The reason is that every time they get pulled over, the cop will see that conviction and will look very hard for evidence of drinking.
But this database has more than just arrest and conviction records. So it is going to cause heightened suspicion and prejudicial treatment of people who have never committed a crime in their lives.
If they can't get enough evidence to convict you or even to arrest you, then how reliable could their information be?
I see little reason for them to be sharing this information on a large scale with local police departments, except that it does give them the power to insert negative information about political activists who some anonymous person in the FBI may not like.
This is certainly not good for civil liberties, and I question its value for fighting crime.
Re: (Score:2)
9/11 (Score:2)
Had the cop known he was on the government's terror list, 3000 people would still be alive and the World Trade Center would still be standing.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not, seeing as they got caught and had to hire me.
Also, I've had a few drinks and later drove, but I was sober. I have passed 2 field sobriety tests in over a year. So I don't buy that someone who has a DUI is anymore at risk than someone who hasn't. Either they're sober or they aren't.
You've never had a DUI, so you don't buy that someone who has had a DUI is at greater risk than you? That's some amazing powers of logic you have t
When I was in College.... (Score:3, Insightful)
When I was in college in the early 1970's, I participated in the Students for a Democratic Socciety (SDS). I was involved in the Boston area, and helped The Socialist Workers Party do a radio show on the MIT and Northeastern Univ. radio stations there. Some years later I did a Freedom of Information Act request for any FBI stuff. A bunch of it came back, primarily from my activities with the radio show. Now, remember, nothing I did was illegal or even immoral. Nor was I charged with any crime or even ever contacted by the FBI. All this was doe secretly without my knowledge.
I have a real problem with any bored local police officer sitting in his cruiser anywhere to be able to simply type in my name and get information about me from over 30 years ago! Frankly, it's none of their business!. Something similar to this actually has already happened to me. I was driving a car I had just bought with my old plates attached (perfectly legal in Massachusetts for 48 hours provided you have the bill of sale, etc.). I stopped for gas and when I came back from paying a cop was there who wanted to know why my plate number came up with a different car. Turns out he was bored and so he begain typing in license plates of nearby cars int his terminal in the cruiser. What's to stop him turning around and typing my name (which he got from the license plate) into the FBI search?
This gives the cops WAY too much information and power to pry into our private affairs!!
All in the cause of TERRORISM, of courser!! :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a "commie" radio show
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that a radio broadcast was made is public knowledge. You do not have a right to forbid the police from listening to your radio broadcasts. Whining about what you want does not change this one bit.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that a radio broadcast was made is public knowledge. You do not have a right to forbid the police from listening to your radio broadcasts. Whining about what you want does not change this one bit.
This is different. He didn't hear your broadcast; he has a report that outs you as a communist, which may have an impact on how you are treated. This does cross a line, and should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
This should be an important lesson to all young people out there. What you do in your youthful stupidity will bite you in the butt when you are older. No matter how much you want it otherwise, you cannot erase the past.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you miss the 50s? :)
Whether or not you agree with his youthful political views is irrelevant. The most fundamental right of a free democracy is that people must have a COMPLETELY free right t
Re: (Score:2)
Why, was the grandparent poster's radio broadcast the subject of a congressional hearing?
This is such a fundamentally necessary right that it must be a central focus of ours to avoid things which endanger it.
Even to the point that history itself must be expunged lest someone learn you made a radio broadcast thirty years prior? This is beyond ludicrous!
It saddens me that the once intelligent left has descended so far into senility that it can't even grasp the simple concept that what
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not with things being observable by the public. The problem is with things being held against you, particularly in matters of law enforcement. Law enforcement should be fair and impartial, yet most humans by their psychological nature are not fair and impartial when they have information which biases their judgme
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, an officer has to have probable cause to initiate an investigation, otherwise the case will be thrown out. If I find someone walking down the street, I can question them all day long, but they can simply walk away and I can do nothing to stop it
Re: (Score:2)
While this is _technically_ true, it's amazing how low that bar can be. I had the misfortune of dealing with the police not too long ago; I locked my door after leaving it (to keep them from barging in and claiming I consented to a search). They used that fact, and claimed that I was "evasive" and "refused to make eye contact" as the basis for obtaining a search warrant. The first statement is a gross mischaracterization; the second state
Re: (Score:2)
I remember a few years ago in NYC seeing a guy in a car driving around typing in every single license plate # he could see. I'm sure it was just an insurance company thing to check for stolen/missing cars, but who knows how many things they check.
Of course, they have cameras that can read the plates now anyway, don't even need the guy. They can just mount a camera somewhere, or drive it around and map who and where everybody is.
Re: (Score:2)
I stopped for gas and when I came back from paying a cop was there who wanted to know why my plate number came up with a different car. Turns out he was bored and so he begain typing in license plates of nearby cars int his terminal in the cruiser.
That much is perfectly reasonable. Your plates are visible to anybody that cares to look, and having them tied to another car is reasonable suspicion that someone stole some plates. I agree about the national search thing. It should only include criminal record
Forgiveness Factor? (Score:3, Insightful)
One advantage of the old system was a built in forgiveness factor. Someone who had a checked past could clean up their life and move forward in life. Any headaches dealing with the system bias and mistakes would eventually become less important over time as records were destroyed or lost.
Now, you will have one central database where every legal detail on your life could be contained. What happens to impulsive individuals to get in a little trouble when they young?
Will they have a record following them around the rest of their lives? I guess your high school teacher was right when they said, "This is going on your permanent record!"
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. Maybe I shouldn't have stabbed her in the eye with the scissors...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure there are principled folks who are thinking that this great big DB will help keep our society safe. I'm equally sure there are equally powerful, but not so principled, folks who want this to further their schemes of maintaining power.
The nature of Institutions is to maintain their power by any means. If some individuals are harmed in the course of the maintenance of power, well, too bad. Human history is replete with examples of individuals and gr
WHEEEEE!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I love it. Especially because I don't live in the US. Look on the bright side, when we hit the bottom, there will be nowhere left to go but up again...
Law Enforcement Data Sharing (Score:3, Informative)
Traffic stops are are dangerous stressful moments for police officers. They don't know if they are stopping Joe Citizen, or someone who just committed armed robbery. If an individual is wanted in the next town, usually that information will not be available.
The Ohio system (OLLEISN) was meant to address this on an statewide basis and got off to a good start. Data is exchanged using an XML standard (Global Justice XML Data Model) developed at Georgia Tech for the DOJ. Content consists of adult criminal records and is tightly controlled.
If the DOJ follows this model for Federal data and does a good job of implementation - I see this as a very positive development.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh wait...
mandelbr0t
what will this be used for .. (Score:2)
[fiction]
"The population is now governed by the tyrannical Home Office Public Control Department (PCD), who have done away with the rights of the individual and maintain control through ID cards, rationing and electronic surveillance"
"the Great Britain
Torrent (Score:2)
Oversight? (Score:2)
Some Concerns and Questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. I don't know where to begin.
First off, I understand there is some not insignificant value to this idea. The concept of making it easier for law enforcement to gather already available information on a suspect is quite laudable. It bothers me when I hear of how a suspect in a "major investigation" was actually picked up on an unrelated offense, and let go, because the arresting officers were unaware of the other outstandings on the person. It would be nice if we could stop this from happening. In fact, I'm sure many lives could be saved. If I had a loved one who was murdered, and then found out that law enforcement had actually captured the suspect beforehand, AND LET HIM GO, you can bet I'd be outraged. But is this proposal the right way to go about it? What is the REAL COST to you and to me. Not just in dollars and cents, but also in our freedoms as citizens.
My concern is more with the implications and implementations of this concept, and how easily it can be abused.
Data Quality: People have been known to not give their correct name to the police. Some people have used multiple names (aliases, AKA, etc.) Further, given that even touch-typists will occasionally make typographical errors (and not everyone is a touch-typist, either), I can forsee a not-insignificant amount of "bad" data finding its way into the system. Someone with a name similar to mine commits an offense, but gets recorded UNDER MY NAME. See: false-positives (Type I error) and flase-negatives (Type II error) here: Type I and type II errors [wikipedia.org].
Feed the Database: If it's so benign, I want to see a requirement that they seed the database with information on EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICIAL. President of the USA, every senator, representative, judge, police officer, sheriff, District Attorney, etc. If your wage is paid by our taxes, then your info gets loaded into their system automatically. If there is an uproar about doing this for THEM, then maybe they should not be doing it to US. Got to stamp out any possible corruption, yanno? Besides, if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. Right?
Log EVERY access: CRUD - Create, Read, Update, Delete. Storage is cheap. Log EVERY SINGLE time the data is accessed complete with the date, time, source IP, accessor's name (See the Feed the Database, above, what was requested, etc. If what you are doing with the database is on the up-and-up, then you have nothing to hide. Log it.
Prosecute Abuse of the System: Run analyses every single day to seek out abuse of the system. And Prosecute Them. Publicize The Prosecutions. Enter the prosecutions into the system. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Data Validation and Correction: It's going to happen. Some data is going to be inaccurate. (Consider the problems that exist with the accuracy of people's credit reports. And the difficulties, effort, and cost involved in getting those mistakes rectified.) How can I:
Looking ahead: Data storage costs are coming down. Some localities have ever-present video cameras recording all activity in their purview. I can imagine a time when advanced techniques exist to go searching through these archives looking for, extracting, and logging the identities and activities of all within their field of view (face recognition, scene analyses, cell phone GPS, etc.) Combine all these streams and extracts into a central DB and one can easily go trolling for perps.
So, in short, I can see some good intentions behind this. Quite laudable in fact. But, I am NOT convinced this is a good idea, never mind whether or not they can come up with a good implementation.
Far more insidious... (Score:3, Informative)
is the ability for a system like this to create new classes of crimes and criminals out of normal law-abiding people. Just think--DA's around the country are always looking to increase their conviction rates, so they start mining data and looking for trends. The next thing you know, there are new laws on the books restricting freedoms, including
Each of these areas has been encroached upon by our new Socialist-Bush government.
I for one, DO NOT welcome our new socialist overlords!
In response to your post (Score:2)
One thing rarely mentioned on these large db's (Score:2, Insightful)
One issue of concern would be and example where I get busted at 17 for a petty crime - do my probation and some community service and have my record expunged. As far as the State is concerned, my record is now clean and the arrest s
Maybe we're being too paranoid? (Score:2, Informative)
What I find interesting is that... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are we talking about OneDOJ or myspace.com?
Re: (Score:2)
Bill Gates' piracy confession (Score:2)
Gates: This social-networking thing takes you to crazy places.
WSJ: But those were stolen, correct?
Gates: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for. So yes.
Tue, 06/20/2006 [computerworld.com]
As another poster has said, the problem with this database is that even the most honest among us commit some crimes so it makes it easier for the police to arrest anyone. Prison space is finite so in practice they arrest the pe
The problems, in a nutshell (Score:2)
2. The data is subject to abuse, partly because it will be so easy to access. Many people can be cowed into opening up when the interrogator shows a little unexpected history on a person, because many people feel guilty about something. For example, "Does your wife know you surf porn channels?" would open up a lot of men...
3. Law enforcement tend to regard legitimate individual political protests as quasi-illegal, un-American activity, and so any personal prote
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.slate.com/id/2106714/ [slate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Washington Post: Left-leaning, liberal
Washington Times: Right-leaning, conservative
Something tells me that if a similar story were to appear in the Washington Times, it would have a different slant and possible even tout the advantages of this crime database.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of the BSDs, I am 27 and those two projects were started before I owned my first PC. As for the Omni argument, my mother never would have thought of that. She would have called it something like Bad Guy Search or possibly Yahoo for crimi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As to the cost, that's a laugh. There might be a block grant available but it won't cover the costs of complying with Uncle Sam's demands. The Feds do this act all the time. Take a look at ESL, no child left behind,etc