Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Data Storage Privacy United States Your Rights Online

Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act Introduced 203

Posted by michael from the won't-go-far dept.
SewersOfRivendell writes "Quote from http://boingboing.net/: 'EFF, EPIC, CDT, ACLU and Free Congress have drafted a bill that's been introduced by Senator Wyden today, for a new law called "The Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act." This is a hell of a law. It finds that various species of spooks are making avid use of commercial and governmental databases, merging them and aggregating them, without transparency, accountability, or any real understanding of the danger to civil liberties involved in this practice. Accordingly, it requires any Fed agency using non-Fed databases to cut it out and make a full report to Congress on who they're buying database and database-services from, what they're doing to preserve privacy, why they're doing what they're doing, and whether they actually have a realistic chance of catching any bad guys. And it calls into account Feds who abuse their authority and limits the kind of doomsday hypotheticals that can be used to justify such abuse.' PDF draft of the bill here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act Introduced More

Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act Introduced

Comments Filter:

  • Better link ...? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Arthaed ( 687979 ) <arthaed&hotmail,com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:06PM (#6563510) Homepage
    I am looking at Senator Ron Wyden's website [senate.gov] right now and I don't see anything mentioning this possible bill. Hmmmm. Does anyone have a link to a .gov version of this so called bill?

  • Accountability? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Empiric ( 675968 ) * on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:07PM (#6563515)
    The "accountability" thing is going to be quite a trick. This is the same government, after all, whose own GAO (General Accounting Office) concluded that government agency accounting is so bad, there's no way they can determine how much the government is actually spending--and that if this degree of lax accounting was taking place in a private corporation, the owners would face legal action.
    • As their senior DBA, I have 4 words for you.

      "I do not recall"

      -B

      • Re:Accountability? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by nolife ( 233813 )
        "Do Not Recall" pretty much sums up the last few years of business practice in the US.

        There was a really good editorial on this in my local newspaper last week. This phrase seems to have replaced "pleading the 5th", and outright lying in court. It is funny how Enron, Worldcomm and a few other executives, working with outside specialists helped produced hundreds of shell companies and transferred money around for years to avoid stating loses and paying taxes but when confronted about specifics, they seeme
        • I wonder if any of these "DO NOT RECALL" statements were on thier resume when they applied for the $500 million jobs.

          Yes, of course they are. It's a requirement for a $500 million job. If they can't trust you in court, why would they give you the job?

    • and that if this degree of lax accounting was taking place in a private corporation, the owners would face legal action.

      So in other words the US Govt is significantly (Enron) better (Worldcom) than (Anderson) most (ImClone) companies... and (Martha Stewart) people.

      Thats a relif.

  • Likely responses... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:08PM (#6563529)
    • cut it out - "Ok, whatever you say."
    • make a full report to Congress - "We ran MySQL. But we stopped, umkay?"
    • what they're doing to preserve privacy - "We have self signed SSL certificates for our intranet."
    • why they're doing what they're doing - "To protect and serve."
    • whether they actually have a realistic chance of catching any bad guys - "Yep. Those bad guys never stood a chance...umkay?"

  • ACLU (Score:4, Funny)

    by pizen ( 178182 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:08PM (#6563532)
    Glad to know my ACLU membership dollars aren't going to waste.

  • Obviously.. (Score:4, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:08PM (#6563534) Homepage Journal

    It's obvious that the EFF, EPIC, CDT, ACLU, Free Congress and Senator Wyden are terrorist sympathizers

  • A good start (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thomas.galvin ( 551471 ) <slashdot@@@thomas-galvin...com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:08PM (#6563535) Homepage
    This is a good start. Now, what can we do about all of the non-government entites that are doing the same thing?

    • Re:A good start (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SecGreen ( 577669 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:11PM (#6563578)
      Buy stock in them, since if the government isn't allowed to collect and analyze the data, they will simply outsource the analysis to the private companies who aren't subject to the new law.
      • Buy stock in them, since if the government isn't allowed to collect and analyze the data, they will simply outsource the analysis to the private companies who aren't subject to the new law.

        That's just depressing. Dammit.

  • Bill Is Not Going to Happen (Score:4, Funny)

    by Valence_99 ( 657377 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:10PM (#6563551)
    Spooks have to justify what they are doing? It will be a cold day in Hell before, unfortunately its still summertime

  • It'll be a hell of a law... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:10PM (#6563556)
    ...when I can sue for damages.

  • Good. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by James A. A. Joyce ( 681634 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:10PM (#6563562) Journal
    This will protect against one of the most effective, obvious and yet least legislated and obvious data harvesting technique of all: triangulation. Even though in general only certain data columns from detailed personal information databases is available, one can combine and merge the data from multiple such subsets of databases to reformulate the data in a coherent whole. For example:

    There is a medical database, an edited down version of which is available, giving just gender, date of birth, a list of medical defects, and a list of medical injuries (with the remainder omitted for privacy). Then there is also the employment database of the company you work at, an edited version of which is available, giving name, gender, date of birth and phone number. If you were a manager at this company you could use the two databases together, using the "gender" and "date of birth" fields to merge the two. This data could then be used, say, leaked to insurance or marketing companies, or you could even use it yourself for other nefarious purposes.

    Thus, it is possible to obtain a good deal of data even from just small portions if one uses a sufficiently large number of different databases. Someone did a study on this, but right now I can't find the link. I'll be greatful to anyone who replies to this comment with it. This Act can only be a good thing.
    • If you were a manager at this company you could use the two databases together, using the "gender" and "date of birth" fields to merge the two

      Just when I thought I was about to have what little privacy I have left invaded, it turns out that there were other males born on Febuary 30th*, 1982. Whew!

      *Note: this isn't really my birthdate.

    • Found the links I needed. (Score:5, Informative)

      by James A. A. Joyce ( 681634 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:29PM (#6563800) Journal
      This article [consumerreports.org], while not specific to the topic I mentioned, did have a specific quote which describes exactly what I was trying to explain:

      "Just by knowing the birth date and ZIP code of the governor of Massachusetts, Latanya Sweeney, a computer-privacy researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, was able to retrieve his health records from a supposedly anonymous database of state employee health-insurance claims. Sweeney also demonstrated that she could do the same for 69 percent of the 54,805 people on the voting list of Cambridge, Mass."

      This is from another article, reprinted from Newsweek [harvard.edu]:

      "...don't get complacent: anonymity is hard to achieve. Where once a company needed a name, address, phone number, or Social Security number to identify a person, database technology has made that unnecessary. "Eighty-seven percent of the population of the US can be uniquely identified [only] by their date of birth, gender, and five-digit zip code," says Latanya Sweeney, ALB '95 assistant professor of computer science and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh."

      And finally, from Dr. Latanya Sweeney's CV itself [cmu.edu]:

      "Recent work includes:

      * Identifiability server -- a computational system that determines the identifiability of given data sets and/or of individuals in the United States based on either field descriptions of the data set or on actual data values. For example, combinations of values such as {date of birth, gender, 5-digit ZIP} combine to uniquely identify 87% of the population in the United States."
      • Looks like there are two ways to increase your anonymity by joining a crowded field. You could live in a place where everyone's your same sex or same DOB (which makes one heck of a birthday party). Or, you can live in a very crowded zip code. If 87% of the US population can be ID'd but only 69% in Cambridge, then you're an easy mark for living in a rural town.

        And to think that folks used to move out to the mountains to drop off government radar.

        • Except the zip code trick won't work, because once a zip area gets too crowded it gets split into two areas. My town shared a single code with a neighboring city until the town's population got high enough to get its own unique code.

          Moving around a lot within the same county/state might work though. If your zip code changes every three years, all the records on you will be "fragmented" and hard to stitch back together. I should have records in 4 different areas now, even though I only moved once (at age 5)

  • As much as I'd love to see this bill pass... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 7x7 ( 665946 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:11PM (#6563569)
    I think I'll start the official R.I.P. thread here. BushCo seems to hate the word privacy as much as the term Wind Power.

    On the other hand, does this law apply to the private sector?

    I already emailed my Rep. to support it. You should do the same.
  • This is a hell of a law. It finds that various species of spooks are making avid use of commercial and governmental databases, merging them and aggregating them, without transparency, accountability, or any real understanding of the danger to civil liberties involved in this practice.

    Wow, that is quite a law! Since when do laws find what "various species of spooks are making avid use of"?

  • Interesting law (Score:4, Interesting)

    by chrisgeleven ( 514645 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:13PM (#6563597) Homepage
    Question is, how likely is it that it will pass or even come up for a vote?

  • Whoa, this is bad (Score:5, Interesting)

    by helix400 ( 558178 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:14PM (#6563622) Journal
    Where I work, our job is to collect *public* information in government databases. We make it possible so people can research a property in just a minutes, rather than a few hours.

    According to the ACLU, because I'm consolidating public information, I'm a national security threat. I should also be forced to submit to even more beaurocratic loopholes to get data that's already public, or be stopped from accessing to much public data to begin with. And I thought the ACLU was all about personal freedom and open governments

    • Whoops, its only federal (Score:5, Interesting)

      by helix400 ( 558178 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:22PM (#6563703) Journal
      My mistake, this bill only applies to the federal government, not for average private citizens like me.

      However, because Slashdotters never like to admit total defeat, I'd like to pose the question. Do you think the the ACLU is still opposed to private citizens like me consolidating so many public government databases about individual people and properties?

      • Re:Whoops, its only federal (Score:4, Informative)

        by Irvu ( 248207 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:47PM (#6563999)
        My understanding is that the issue is not collation of public data so much as the abuse of private data. There a re many laws on the books that restrict the feds from collecting and sharing some types of information (medical records, purchase records, etc.) without some form of judicial oversight. The goal was to erect firewalls between say the IRS's and the FBI and to prevent the growth of TIA-like systems.

        However, there are few if any restrictions on the private sector. This is why most of us receive so much junk mail. In recent years, the FBI and others have begun sidestepping their restrictions by turning to private companies to collect and aggregate data for them.

        My understanding of this law is that they want to attack that very issue, government sidestepping the very necessary restraints that we have placed on it.

    • Re:Whoa, this is bad (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld.gmail@com> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:28PM (#6563782) Homepage
      According to the ACLU, because I'm consolidating public information, I'm a national security threat. I should also be forced to submit to even more beaurocratic loopholes to get data that's already public, or be stopped from accessing to much public data to begin with. And I thought the ACLU was all about personal freedom and open governments

      Good. You may be inconvenienced, but in the long run it's a lot more advantageous for us to gain some protection from overzealous spooks than it is for us to be able to research properties a little faster. Annoying for you, maybe, but just because the governmental agency you work for is benign, doesn't mean they all are.
    • It doesn't sound like this bill would effect you beyond adding another (perhaps one time) piece of government paperwork describing your data and its purpose.

      The intent of the bill (as I read this blurb) is to make government information keeping accountable - not to prevent it. the government has many jobs, and obviously will need many databases. The bill does not seem to suggest that they are bad or unnecessary. It suggests it is necessary to keep track of how other agencies are using the data.

      As examples

    • Re:Whoa, this is bad (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 )
      From my reading, it looks like the actual usage of such a database is the problem, not the creation. So it would be OK for you to put this database together, and OK for citizens to use it to find property information, but NOT OK for the cop down the street who decides that he doesn't like that I've painted my house green to punch my address information into it and get my name and fake a bunch of correspondence from me to get a warrant just so he gets the chance to beat down my door.

      Conspiracy theorists mi

    • The workings of a police state (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Dalcius ( 587481 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @07:57PM (#6566480)
      I think, in short, the biggest issue against things like the TIA is this:

      The TIA was thought of as a means to search for patterns among public data on American citizens. This equates to the government (computer program or not) evaluating you and your habits for potential trends. It is, in effect, a way for the government to stake-out its citiziens.

      Rights to privacy and due process state clearly: you are innocent until proven guilty, and you have a right to be left alone. What the TIA is doing is investigating every citizen regardless of their behavior.

      A good analogy is putting up cameras in every public place. The place is public, and they're not targeting YOU specifically, so what's there to worry about, right?

      For one, I want to live my life without knowing someone is looking over my shoulder unless they have a reason to look over my shoulder. Playing big-brother to all citizens is not where we want things to go.

      Secondly, the argument "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" shows logical ineptitude. The first step in any police state is the ability to monitor citizens. The next step is to deem minority actions illegal (e.g. possessing communist doctorines [see McSurely v. McClellan, Supreme Court]).

      When a single body controls both the laws and the force that enforces those laws, the only things they lack are the tools to find those breaking their laws.

      History has shown that the public won't stop a government from enacting laws against minorities, especially if the law and/or enforcement of that law are vague, so instead of trust our government not to abuse their information gathering tools, I'd rather just not give them those tools.

      If terrorists are on every street corner, either we should be having a lot more bombings (how hard is it to strap TNT to your chest and walk into a Burger King?), or the government has been doing a damn good job in the last decade without these tools.

      If you folks want guarantees that terrorists can't do anything to us, enjoy living in a police state, I'll be buying a private island.

      PS: To any trolls wanting to call me a liberal whiner who doesn't want my ID checked in an airport, I'll save you some time and humiliation. I typically agree with conservatives over liberals, I believe in airport ID checking and the like. Where do I draw the line? Going to an airport is not generally a regular experience for the vast majority of Americans and often involves international travel. Airports are a good place to scan, IMO. However, if I can be watched just by going through a normal week, I have issues.
    • According to the ACLU, because I'm consolidating public information, I'm a national security threat.

      No, according to the ACLU, you are a personal privacy threat.

      It's the Dept. of Homeland Security that thinks you're a national security threat.

  • What I want to see (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dachannien ( 617929 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:14PM (#6563623)
    I'd like to see some corporate accountability added into those sorts of databases. I want to be able to walk into the front door at Citibank and say, give me a printout on all the information you have on me.

    Then I want to be able to read the printout, walk back up to the desk, and say, Okay, now delete it. All of it.

    • Re:What I want to see (Score:4, Funny)

      by Torgo's Pizza ( 547926 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:21PM (#6563693) Homepage Journal
      Yes, and while you're at it, also erase all those numbers that say that I owe you money for my Visa and Mastercard. Thank you Citibank!
    • That's going to be pretty hard on our credit based economy.
      • Okay, yeah, I was using a little bit of hyperbole for theatrical effect. But I still feel that if I don't have an account with Citibank, I should be able to require them to delete all of the personal information they have on me.

        • Re:What I want to see (Score:4, Insightful)

          by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:49PM (#6564023) Homepage Journal

          It's amazing how much they can ask you to give up in the way of privacy these days.

          If you want to rent a car, have a VISA card, you're going to have to part with as much privacy as they demand of you.

          And if your employer wants you to pee in a cup, record your fingerprints in their database and undergo a complete physical to which they obtain all the information, then you have freedom of choice: tolerate the invasion of your privacy, or look for a new job. What a fine choice.

          The founding fathers of the United States of America would have understood the need for privacy, even though it was less an issue in their day. If it were quick and easy for the colonial administration to find and squelch them as rapidly as it could be done today, be assured there would be no Declaration of Independence or U.S. Constitution.

          The new bill sounds excellent to me, something that Americans could actually be proud of having on their books (rather than the knee-jerk abomination that is the Patriot Act).

          Law and Order is great, too, but it shouldn't be Easy and Convenient for anyone to impose Law and Order.

          Otherwise, the "Law" and the "Order" that is so effectively imposed might gradually become something different than what the labels say.

          • I like privacy and all, but geez, did you have to use such horrible examples?

            It's amazing how much they can ask you to give up in the way of privacy these days.

            If you want to rent a car, have a VISA card, you're going to have to part with as much privacy as they demand of you.

            And if your employer wants you to pee in a cup, record your fingerprints in their database and undergo a complete physical to which they obtain all the information, then you have freedom of choice: tolerate the invasion of your p

    • Re:What I want to see (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zathrus ( 232140 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:29PM (#6563796) Homepage
      Fine. As long as you understand that they then have the right to say "Certainly sir. And how would you like to pay your outstanding mortgage balance of $235702.46?"

      Or to give you whatever money of yours they have, or do whatever's necessary to sever all financial ties with you immediately.

      You're not a customer? Then they're not going to have crap for information on you. They may send you solicitations, but that information is acquired from the credit bureau. You can tell Citibank to be put on their do not solicit list, and then your data will get flushed early in the process whenever it gets pulled from the bureaus. Yes, I've worked in this field, doing this exact thing. If you don't want your data to be sold by the bureaus, you can request that from the bureaus as well. There are three major ones (Equifax, Experian, Trans Union) and a few hundred thousand small ones (all of whom feed the big three).

      You don't actually expect a company to do business with you if they're not allowed to keep records, right? Might I suggest you do some research into how godawful the banking industry was prior to the introduction of the credit bureaus? Think "Good Ole Boys Network" and you'll have a start on it... but it was considerably worse.

      I'm not saying that some additional protections on consumer privacy shouldn't be in place (as a bare minimum everyone should be entitled to viewing their own credit report on demand, for no more than cost of mailing or free online). And I'm also not saying that the pendulum hasn't swung too far in the wrong direction (the law a couple years ago allowing companies unprecedented sharing of consumer information went way too far). But anyone who makes statements like that generally has no clue how the financial system, particularly the credit portion of it, actually works.
    • If I was a bank (OK, maybe if I was a bank branch manager), and I had no way to verify that someone who walked in the door was the legitimate owner of a bank account, I wouldn't allow them to carry out any business with me. You would never find a bank that would do so, as they would be wide-open to any type of fraud you can think of.

      If the government legislated that I (as a bank) couldn't keep any information about you - if I had to "delete it... all of it" as you say - if I couldn't retain your signature

    • Not delete, but VALIDATE (Score:3, Interesting)

      by swb ( 14022 )
      Rather than delete the information, I'd like to see a process similar to but much more streamlined than the one we have for dealing with the credit reporting agencies.

      Basically, walk into any place I think has information on me and ask to see it ALL. I then get to validate it for accuracy, and if I find parts inaccurate I get to say so. They then would have 30 days to prove me wrong, and if they can't, what I say is inaccurate gets deleted from my file automatically.

      And validation needs to be based on s

    • Awesome! (Score:2)

      by pen ( 7191 )
      I want to be able to walk into the front door at Citibank and say, give me a printout on all the information you have on me.
      Excellent! Just be sure you don't forget wishing for this next time you lose your wallet and it falls into the wrong hands...
    • Exactly this is law, at least in Sweden.

      Corps are required to provide you with any and all records they may have on you. That recordkeeping is subject to your consent (which you usually agree to when entering a business relationship, but can revoke at any time).

      In addition, this bill is a non-starter in Sweden. What, US government agencies now would have to declare how they're merging databases? Won't happen here because they're not allowed to in the first place. Yes, you heard me correct: government agen

  • What's the limit for? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:16PM (#6563643)
    The Attorney General, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall each prepare...

    All of the other agencies, particularly the Department of Commerce and it's Bureau of the Census, utilize numerous public databases in the process of their daily work. Why not include reports from them too?

    • Re:What's the limit for? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by leerpm ( 570963 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:23PM (#6563724)
      Because when the Bureau of the Census screws up the information in their database for an individual, it makes narry a blip in their aggregrate stats. When the FBI screws this up, you may have agents busting your door down for no legitimate reason other than the computer says you may have links to terrorism.
      • When the FBI screws this up, you may have agents busting your door down for no legitimate reason other than the computer says you may have links to terrorism.

        If you have evidence that suggests that the FBI has ever raided someone's home just because "the computer says [they] may have links to terrorism," please share it. Otherwise you're just spreading fear and alarmism.

        The FBI may call you and/or write you a letter and/or knock on your door and ask to have a chat, but that's not the same as "busting yo
        • You're trying to depict the FBI as an organization of jackbooted Gestapo thugs, and that's unfair.

          Thats purely disingenuous. The poster describes a scenario where the FBI is unknowingly acting on bad information, and you cry Godwin.

          Perhaps your expiriences with The Agency are limited to your dad's company picnics, but they can be pretty farkin scary if they're going after someone they think is a bad guy.

          As for the examples you asked for, I decided to expand beyond computer error and include other abuse
    • We had to shred everything and we were instructed not to share/cooperate the information we collected with the FBI, the CIA, or most importantly, the INS...

  • Thanks for the EFF and ACLU (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joelparker ( 586428 ) <joel@school.net> on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:19PM (#6563672) Homepage
    Please realize that the bill is VERY useful,
    even it fails: the bill encourages dicussion.

    ACLU and EFF members will learn more.
    The media will write about it, and learn more.

    And Congresspeople will read it,
    or have their staffers research it,
    and maybe learn something.

    I thank the EFF and ACLU for this.
    And I donate to both of them.

    Cheers, Joel

    • And Congresspeople will read it, or have their staffers research it, and maybe learn something. I thank the EFF and ACLU for this. And I donate to both of them.
      But did you write to your two senators [senator.gov] about it? It will take less time that posting on /. about it.

  • tinfoil (Score:3, Funny)

    by stupidsocialscientis ( 689586 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:21PM (#6563695)
    does anyone know where i might purchase tinfoil in sheets wide enough to wrap my house? it only has to be wide enough for the walls, you see the roof is covered with solar collecters so that i am not supporting the evil-power-conspiracy.
  • Legislation and regulations are all fine and good, but they must be backed up by fair and thorough enforcement to truly work. Self-enforcement of Government regulations when it applies only to Government is far too tempting.

  • Did anyone else ever notice... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...that the bills that protect citizens' rights always have names that make awkward, unpronouncable acroynms like "CPFDA," but the ones that restrict citizens' rights always seem to have catchy, pronouncable ones like "PATRIOT"?

  • Good. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by softspokenrevolution ( 644206 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:30PM (#6563803) Journal
    Simply letting federal agencies run around and spy on people simply because they can doesn't seem to be the best idea for a country based on freedom and all of that jazz. Accountability is what keeps things from going bad to worse, look at dictatorships all over the planet, when people aren't held accountable for their actions they go to extremes. Americans or not, I don't fel very secure when someone can peer into any old asset of my life without asking my permission or without being checked in some fashion. I for one, feel more threatened by the current way the administration is going in regards to policy (foreign, fiscal, energy, environmental, copyright, and pretty everything else) than I do by any terrorist threat (then again, like 90% of americans I don't live in a threatened area, I likve in the 'burbs, well, the sort of burbs).
    • Ya don't need to live near ground zero. I don't feel any different because of a policy or practice or not. An event like that can happen anywhere, and it has. It doesn't take 2 years to orchestrate a disaster on a large number of people. It may, to make it symbolic. But hell, any fool can pack a big boom surprise and walk into grand central station. A little more planning than 2 or 3 months and a volatile chem or nuke fac can really waste a population. I'm not sure if I buy any of it. If they really wanted

  • Damn! (Score:4, Funny)

    by isotope23 ( 210590 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:36PM (#6563877) Homepage Journal
    Too bad the pentagon cancelled their "terrorist prediction" market, cause I bet the likelyhood for assassination of "EFF, EPIC, CDT, And ACLU" members just went up!

  • You sure? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:36PM (#6563880) Homepage
    Its been introduced? I can just picture it now:

    (Congress)

    Random Congresscritter: And now Senator Wyden will be presenting a bill to.....o, excuse me, one moment please (whispers to man in black suit with mirror shades)....Well, it seems Senator Wyden is no longer with us. Moving on to the next piece of business.....

  • Database integration has a positive side too (Score:3, Insightful)

    by grandmaster_spunk ( 203386 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @03:38PM (#6563899)
    Although I'm all for the protection of privacy, I also think it's important to point out that the integration of various government databases has a lot of potential positive effects as well. There are a lot of agencies out there maintaining separate (and redundant) databases that could be combined or used together to make government services easier to obtain. There is also a lot of potential money saved, in terms of government functions currently done manually that could be automated.

    Certainly, it is prudent to keep prying eyes from using their power to intrude into our lives. But there is a balance to be struck as well, between protecting privacy and allowing government to make use of tools that I think many /.ers will agree are useful and productive.
    • Although I'm all for the protection of privacy, I also think it's important to point out that the integration of various government databases has a lot of potential positive effects as well [for those who are in power]. There are a lot of agencies out there maintaining separate (and redundant) databases that could be combined or used together to make government services easier to obtain [for personal power plays]. There is also a lot of potential money saved [for those who hold the pursestrings], in terms
  • Following the advice of a previous article...

    Let's pretend that everyone has an equal chance of being born on any given day of the year (366). There are 99999 possible ZIP codes, and not all of them are used. You are either M or F (trans-gender issues aside). 366*2*99999 = 73,199,268. Why is this news exactly? Who couldn't figure this out before now?
  • ...in such context, I remember Al Capone, he was "protecting" people too, and he was doing it just the same way as the government does now.
  • I'm glad to see our members of congress are actually representing our interests.

    I think this is designed specifically to close a loophole where some agencies would simply outsource to contractors any data collection they themselves were forbidden from doing.

    Frankly, for all the billions of dollars we are paying to keep our government running, I want THEM to be generating these databases anyway. That means I can hop on some website and suck it down "free" of charge. (I already paid for it.)

    Say what you

  • Jaded Cynicism (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hamstaus ( 586402 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @04:00PM (#6564118) Homepage
    I can't believe the crap I'm reading on this one, although I guess I shouldn't really be surprised. It seems that most Slashdot posters are grumpy, bitter and jaded. This bill is a really good thing, and yet the majority of the responses are "Pfff, like that'll happen". With the likes of you folks, it'll never happen. It seems you'd rather sit around and simply be negative about everything! You're simply part of the problem that you like to grump about. Get off your ass and write a quick email to your representative. Then go find a puppy or something to play with for god's sake, and quit being so damned negative.

    • Read the law, visit senate.gov, and make it a law. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Frobnicator ( 565869 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @05:03PM (#6564841) Journal
      The law is tiny (1500 words, smaller than many /. articles) and is easy to understand.

      If everyone on /. would just spend 2 minutes we could get this passed.

      1. Click here to go to senate.gov [senate.gov].
      2. Pick your state from the list.
      3. Click on both of your senator's e-mail contact links, each link opens a new window.
      4. Fill out your name and address in the form, then paste the following:
        Senator [
        senator's name],
        I am a citizen of [your state] who is concerned about my rights. A bill was proposed today by Mr. Wyden with the short title "CITIZENS' PROTECTION IN FEDERAL DATABASES ACT".
        The bill is simple and easy to understand. It improves our security and will improve our ability to fight terrorism, which you have stated is your goal.
        I urge you to SUPPORT this bill.
        [your name]
      Fill in the blanks, and get this passed! The statement about it improving security is true, and since it's the big thing in congress lately, they want to do everything to help that out.

      frob

    • With the likes of you folks, it'll never happen. It seems you'd rather sit around and simply be negative about everything!

      We've been burned. Left at the altar too many times. Stood up. Again and again. Does that mean we don't want it? No. But please excuse the crowd if they give their thumbs-up while crouching behind a pile of sandbags.

    • I'm definitly jaded about the whole email thing, but I'll definitely be paying the $0.37 to send this one on its merry way. Probably write my senators too, not that they've ever shown me that they cared (after all, they've got the whole state to vote for them if I don't).

      I'm also going to be asking that they push for an amendment to require that said agencies account for how they recognize and correct errors in these databases, because while someone finding out that I've got some STD or another can be emb
  • ...since according to the panelist (reptoids.com)on "Conspiracy Zone" claimed Reptilian (Reptoids) aliens call the shots at MiB, I want to make sure the law protects me from them as well. Gee, I thought they were known as the Zeta Riticulans; I sure hope the law protects against the Kappa and Lambda Riticulans as well... :)

  • The only reason. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RevSmiley ( 226151 )
    The only reason the feds want access to all this data is to troll for reasons to make you a criminal. There is no other reason. They sure as hell are not doing it to make government more responsive. They are not concerned that most of this data is inaccurate. Just feds looking for people to arrest, imprison, fine or otherwise harm.
    When you have people like Ron Wyden and Bob Barr agreeing on something you better pay attention.

  • Danger Will Robinson! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mobileskimo ( 461008 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @04:29PM (#6564427) Journal
    The report all hinges on this section...

    Section 3 2A a list of all contracts, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements entered into by the department or agency, or any other national security, intelligence, or law enforcement element under the jurisdiction of the department or agency for the use of, access to, or analysis of databases that were obtained from or remain under the control of a non-Federal entity, or that contain information that was acquired initially by another department or agency of the Federal Government for the purposes other than national security, intelligence, or law enforcement.

    "Uh, correct sir, we didn't provide a report on the use of this information because it was previously used for national security, sir. We are obligated to report if its for purposes other than national security, intelligence, or law enforcement. Yes sir, toilet paper purchase behavior is taken very seriously in the intelligence community, sir."

  • Liberty and Fear (Score:2, Informative)

    by blacknight84 ( 678918 )
    This Senator makes me proud to live in Oregon. I would love to see more people of his mindset elected in the next election. But anyways, what I hope comes of this bill even though it is unlikely to pass is more discussion and a general awareness of what all this government FUD is driving the people to do. I hope that this bill gets a lot of attention, and maybe wakes up the country from it's state of fear and warmongering. Chris Hedges had an excllent book about Nationalism, Fear, and all the troubles that

  • Scary is the fact (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Bruha ( 412869 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @06:28PM (#6565702) Homepage Journal
    That none of the big 3 credit agencies know where I live and still show my employer from nearly 4 years ago.

    I guess the funny thing is the feds would be better off calling me than going to my house if they had reason to want to talk to me. Since public databases are so innaccurate.

    But what's not funny is the fact that a government agency working on bad/outdated information could very well surround a old lady's house and when she goes walking around with her big black maglite they open fire and killing poor grandma. Of course they'll use the same tired excuse of we had bad intel.

    I'm sure the guy that dropped the bomb on the chinese embasy said the same thing.

  • more information (Score:3, Informative)

    by bob_jenkins ( 144606 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @08:24PM (#6566686) Homepage Journal
    It's really really hard to remain anonymous when you have lots of joinable databases. We have lots of joinable databases, and there are more all the time. Outlawing joining of databases to preserve privacy strikes me as a lost cause.

    However, if the only goal is to add more public information to databases, namely which databases are being joined and why, that's a good thing. Especially if it can be automated.

  • Irrelevant Because (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Master of Transhuman ( 597628 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @09:08PM (#6566963) Homepage
    next year or so we'll be at war with the North Koreans, they will lose and in desperation or spite detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil.

    Bush will use the panick to get the public to give him all power to rip up what's left of the Constitution and start instituting a fascist dictatorship.

    So this really won't matter in a year or two.

    Think I'm paranoid? They're not preparing to draft eighty thousand medical personnel via the Selective Service because they think there MIGHT be a WMD problem "someday"... You heard it here first.

  • The ACLU is doing something constructive? Wow. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Tuesday July 29, 2003 @09:20PM (#6567035) Homepage
    Frankly, the only experience I ever had with the ACLU was in my junior year of high school, where a student wore a "Straight Pride" shirt into school, and the school, knowing full well it was freedom of speech, wouldn't suspend him, just gave him a stern talking-to letting him know that while he might have the right to say it, it might not necessarily be considered appropriate.

    Then some gay student's parents got involved. The lawyers got involved. The ACLU got involved. Next thing you know, the ACLU is threatening to sue the school, and the school finally caves in and assigns some disciplinary measures. I believe he was suspended for 10 days.

    While it might not have been the most sensitive thing to say in a school that has an above-average population of liberals in Rent shirts, I am certainly of the mentality "I agree not what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    It's nice to see the ACLU doing something constructive instead of persecuting people.
  • Right now, I am so disenchanted with the US government that even if the bill passed, I wouldn't expect any agencies to truthfully disclose WHERE they got the information, or WHY they needed it. What kind of checks and balances are there to insure that the agencies are telling the truth? What happens if they don't tell the truth? These agencies would need to answer to the people whose information they are using.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats

Close