Eye on Americans - the FBI's Database on YOU

[mugaliens]

Yes, that's right. Everything from privacy act material to your grades in high school and college, letters to the editor you wrote disagreeing with accepted government policy...

Who knows what's really in the http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101220/ts_yblog_thelookout/the-5-most-surprising-revelations-from-the-posts-monitoring-america-investigation" . Probably this thread...

Here in Colorado, we have a law on the books that specifically forbids any state (or lower) government office from keeping records on concealed handgun permits (CHP), with the sole exception of the sheriff's office of the county in which it was issued. The intent was to prevent abuse of this information, including profiling by various law-enforcement agencies, and smear campaigns for politicians who might hold a CHP.

I, for one, am opposed to the FBI's database, as terrorists aren't likely to engage in behaviors which would raise red flags. If anything, they'll keep their heads down, making no waves.

I, on the other hand am an outspoken American. I may rail against some government policies, but I'm a staunch supporter of many activities done to detect and counter terrorism. I love my country, and hate seeing anyone get away with the kinds of atrocities done during 9/11, and earlier, by McVeigh and his pals(s).

Yet, am I to find my way profiled in the FBI's database simply because I think it's right to exercise my 1st Amendment rights speaking out against certain government activities which I believe cross the line, some of which questionably violate our rights as enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution? Heck! Along with all the other political writers, cartoonists, bloggers, and those who write letters to the editor, I'm part of the process envisioned by our founders which helps both keep the government in check while spurring them on to greater things than eroding our civil rights.

Yet is that activity now being recorded in the FBI's database? Isn't that profiling? Does anyone else here see something inherently wrong and potentially dangerous about this?

 

[NobodySpecial]

Ultimately it becomes more suspicious NOT to be on the FBI's database

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, that's right. Everything from privacy act material to your grades in high school and college, letters to the editor you wrote disagreeing with accepted government policy...

Who knows what's really in the http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101220/ts_yblog_thelookout/the-5-most-surprising-revelations-from-the-posts-monitoring-america-investigation" . Probably this thread...

I, for one, am opposed to the FBI's database, as terrorists aren't likely to engage in behaviors which would raise red flags. If anything, they'll keep their heads down, making no waves.

Our recent experience with terrorists disagrees with you: terrorists almost always raise red flags: that's the main reason so many attacks on American soil failed over the past 9 years. Heck, even ones that succeeded (Ft Hood shooter, for example [edit: not to mention 9/11 itself!]) gave clear red-flags that were unfortunately ignored. And the most recent one:

WASHINGTON — FBI agents used Facebook to nab a young Muslim-American on Wednesday who believed he was about to set off a car bomb at a US military recruitment office, the Department of Justice said.

An affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint alleges that on September 29, 2010, Martinez publicly posted on his Facebook account a statement calling for violence to stop the oppression of Muslims, and that on Oct. 1, 2010, he publicly posted a message stating that he hates any person who opposes Allah and his prophet.

The FBI set Martinez up with a fake car bomb, and then apprehended him when he was about to set it off remotely.

http://www.allfacebook.com/terrorist-caught-through-facebook-sting-operation-2010-12

I have nothing to hide and I wish to aid the fight against terrorism. As such, I welcome the FBI's monitoring of my public activities and have even in the past explicitly invited them to monitor not-so-public activities (my phone).

 

[drankin]

Yes, that's right. Everything from privacy act material to your grades in high school and college, letters to the editor you wrote disagreeing with accepted government policy...

Who knows what's really in the http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20101220/ts_yblog_thelookout/the-5-most-surprising-revelations-from-the-posts-monitoring-america-investigation" . Probably this thread...

Here in Colorado, we have a law on the books that specifically forbids any state (or lower) government office from keeping records on concealed handgun permits (CHP), with the sole exception of the sheriff's office of the county in which it was issued. The intent was to prevent abuse of this information, including profiling by various law-enforcement agencies, and smear campaigns for politicians who might hold a CHP.

I, for one, am opposed to the FBI's database, as terrorists aren't likely to engage in behaviors which would raise red flags. If anything, they'll keep their heads down, making no waves.

I, on the other hand am an outspoken American. I may rail against some government policies, but I'm a staunch supporter of many activities done to detect and counter terrorism. I love my country, and hate seeing anyone get away with the kinds of atrocities done during 9/11, and earlier, by McVeigh and his pals(s).

Yet, am I to find my way profiled in the FBI's database simply because I think it's right to exercise my 1st Amendment rights speaking out against certain government activities which I believe cross the line, some of which questionably violate our rights as enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution? Heck! Along with all the other political writers, cartoonists, bloggers, and those who write letters to the editor, I'm part of the process envisioned by our founders which helps both keep the government in check while spurring them on to greater things than eroding our civil rights.

Yet is that activity now being recorded in the FBI's database? Isn't that profiling? Does anyone else here see something inherently wrong and potentially dangerous about this?

First I have to ask, is profiling wrong? It seems to me that it is necessary. When the perps that commit acts of terrorism share details in their lifestyle, shouldn't they be flagged by agencies that work to prevent it? There is a line but where should it be distinguished?

 

[Hepth]

I have nothing to hide and I wish to aid the fight against terrorism. As such, I welcome the FBI's monitoring of my public activities and have even in the past explicitly invited them to monitor not-so-public activities (my phone).

I'm all for the FBI monitoring ALL of my public activities, and even private phone conversations so long as they have REASON to. What I don't like is the thought of the FBI using this entrapment tactic for less stuff. Convincing someone to be a terrorist, then arresting them for it is a bit much, as I'm sure the convicted are very malleable and the FBI very convincing.

Imagine you get an email from a friend with a link to an MP3 that's the new (insert band here) song and you JUST HAVE TO HEAR IT. So you download it, turns out it's just white static and not the song. The FBI show up and say you violated or intended to violate copyright law and arrest you, and the person who sent it to you was just a FBI spoofed email account.

Now had they not sent the email, you wouldn't have looked for or tried to download this mp3. Before their approach, you had NO desire tor intent to violate the law, nor any MEANS of getting it.

Obviously national security is a little different, but its still a tactic I don't agree with. Neither do I agree with the news reporting it as "thwarted attempts" as we were never in danger.

 

[Averagesupernova]

So your point on the downloading is what? If it isn't legal it isn't legal. Now had it been set up so that simply by your going to the site without downloading could get you in trouble I would have a problem with it. Where are you willing to draw the line here? Suppose you are in college and one of your buddies scores with a seemingly easy totally hot chick. He tells you to chat her up because she will put out and is incredible. But, you try, don't succeed, and decide to rape her since your buddy said she was way hot and after all you just had to have her. Are you guilty? Damn right.

 

[lisab]

First I have to ask, is profiling wrong? It seems to me that it is necessary. When the perps that commit acts of terrorism share details in their lifestyle, shouldn't they be flagged by agencies that work to prevent it? There is a line but where should it be distinguished?

What if the profile goes something like this: Imagine the FBI has intelligence which indicates domestic terrorists are likely to use a specific (legal) weapon. Therefore, from now on all Americans who buy or own that type of weapon should be flagged for increased scrutiny.

If you've done nothing wrong, and even if the activity that got you flagged is guaranteed by the Constitution, is it OK for the government to track you?

 

[NobodySpecial]

Now had it been set up so that simply by your going to the site without downloading could get you in trouble I would have a problem with it.

Like if they then came to arrest you for not reporting your friend for copyright theft ?

 

[drankin]

What if the profile goes something like this: Imagine the FBI has intelligence which indicates domestic terrorists are likely to use a specific (legal) weapon. Therefore, from now on all Americans who buy or own that type of weapon should be flagged for increased scrutiny.

If you've done nothing wrong, and even if the activity that got you flagged is guaranteed by the Constitution, is it OK for the government to track you?

It would be a waste of time and resources to monitor the activities of millions of gun owners. I would expect a warrant be required to start monitoring ones private information. I've already gone through an FBI background check when I purchased my firearms and received my concealed carry permit. Would we expect them to turn around and throw that information away?

 

[Proton Soup]

old news

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

Late in life, and after his death, Hoover became an increasingly controversial figure. His critics have accused him of exceeding the jurisdiction of the FBI.[1] He used the FBI to harass political dissenters and activists, to amass secret files on political leaders,[2] and to collect evidence using illegal methods.[3] It is because of Hoover's long and controversial tenure that FBI directors are now limited to 10-year terms.[4]

weird that wiki links are secure now?
edit: n/m - been there a while, guess i googled an https by chance

 

[Averagesupernova]

Like if they then came to arrest you for not reporting your friend for copyright theft ?

There is a gray area. I'm doing the speed limit and am I expected to call and report the license number of every car that passes me?
-
My scenario of simply going to the site without downloading gets me busted is different. I am being busted for a crime that I have not comitted but it is assumed I will anyway, so what the heck.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm all for the FBI monitoring ALL of my public activities, and even private phone conversations so long as they have REASON to.

Agreed. Where I suspect they differ is in our perception of the acceptable reasons (you just say "reason", but I suspect you really mean 'reason acceptable to me').

What I don't like is the thought of the FBI using this entrapment tactic for less stuff. Convincing someone to be a terrorist, then arresting them for it is a bit much, as I'm sure the convicted are very malleable and the FBI very convincing.

Imagine you get an email from a friend with a link to an MP3 that's the new (insert band here) song and you JUST HAVE TO HEAR IT. So you download it, turns out it's just white static and not the song. The FBI show up and say you violated or intended to violate copyright law and arrest you, and the person who sent it to you was just a FBI spoofed email account.

I don't see how that situation bears any resemblance to the one in your previous paragraph and the one I linked. Are you saying that you think unknowingly opening an email that contains illegal content is the same as knowingly accepting it? I certainly don't and I don't think the law does either. The former sounds like entrapment to me.

Now had they not sent the email, you wouldn't have looked for or tried to download this mp3. Before their approach, you had NO desire tor intent to violate the law, nor any MEANS of getting it.

So you're saying you don't think the guy who said he wanted to kill Americans really wanted to kill Americans? You're not being logical here. The facts are not equivalent to your hypothetical.

 

[russ_watters]

What if the profile goes something like this: Imagine the FBI has intelligence which indicates domestic terrorists are likely to use a specific (legal) weapon. Therefore, from now on all Americans who buy or own that type of weapon should be flagged for increased scrutiny.

If you've done nothing wrong, and even if the activity that got you flagged is guaranteed by the Constitution, is it OK for the government to track you?

Yes! That's what "profiling" is!

Profiling is a critically important police tactic.

It would be a waste of time and resources to monitor the activities of millions of gun owners.

Non sequitur. Not only are we not in a position to know if it is useful, whether it is useful doesn't have any bearing on the ethics of doing it. All that matters is that the police think it is useful.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have nothing to hide and I wish to aid the fight against terrorism. As such, I welcome the FBI's monitoring of my public activities and have even in the past explicitly invited them to monitor not-so-public activities (my phone).

You do understand that this is completely irrelevant to the discussion, right?

"I have nothing to hide" is the most tangential response possible regarding potential invasions of privacy and abuse of power.

What did you do? Did you actually call the FBI and ask them to watch you? I'd bet that sent up some flags!

 

[russ_watters]

There is a gray area. I'm doing the speed limit and am I expected to call and report the license number of every car that passes me?

A gray area and a completely different question. Non sequitur.

 

[russ_watters]

You do understand that this is completely irrelevant to the discussion, right?

"I have nothing to hide" is the most tangential response possible regarding potential invasions of privacy and abuse of power.

Really? I'd think that if I had something to hide that would have impacted my decision to invite them to monitor me substantially.

Obviously, it isn't an "invasion" of privacy if I invite it.

And abuse of power? I suppose there is a finite chance of an abuse. I weighed that chance against my desire to help the fight against terrorism and my desire to help won. I suppose then you fear government abuse more than you fear terrorism?

What did you do? Did you actually call the FBI and ask them to watch you?

No, I emailed them.

I'd bet that sent up some flags!

Um, well, yes - that was my reason for doing it!

 

[russ_watters]

Ivan - I can't be sure you saw it when I posted the full story 3 years ago (the thread was locked and I'm not sure why), but the post was directed at you: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1334813&postcount=7

 

[Proton Soup]

Profiling is a critically important police tactic. Non sequitur. Not only are we not in a position to know if it is useful, whether it is useful doesn't have any bearing on the ethics of doing it. All that matters is that the police think it is useful.

i find this sort of thinking unethical. the police do not serve themselves. they do not even serve the government. they serve you and i. and you and i have rights, and implicit in the rights according to the USSC is a right to privacy.

 

[nismaratwork]

i find this sort of thinking unethical. the police do not serve themselves. they do not even serve the government. they serve you and i. and you and i have rights, and implicit in the rights according to the USSC is a right to privacy.

re bolded: Really, that's the beginning and end of it, but people are willing to cash in liberty for the illusion of security. They'll kill themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and unsafe driving, but the mere off-chance that bad men will strike somehow is paralyzing. It isn't that the threat isn't real or shouldn't be addressed, but our priorities are ****ed, and it leads to these fine patriots of the FBI and Christians In Action, etc... to snoop and feel justified. The irony is that it seems to so often come down to needing human intelligence to convince any higher up the line, that any of the sigint should be heeded.

We live in a warped world.

 

[WhoWee]

If listening to EVERY phone call made somehow keeps us safe - then do it. If 95% of the people making calls can be downgraded (call it profiling in reverse?), that's even better. If from that 5% they can downgrade another 80% to a manageable 1% of all calls - then profiling sounds good to me. After 9 years, my guess is they've figured out who to listen to and what to listen for - something has been working.

 

[nismaratwork]

If listening to EVERY phone call made somehow keeps us safe - then do it. If 95% of the people making calls can be downgraded (call it profiling in reverse?), that's even better. If from that 5% they can downgrade another 80% to a manageable 1% of all calls - then profiling sounds good to me. After 9 years, my guess is they've figured out who to listen to and what to listen for - something has been working.

The USSC, and therefore the current interpretation of the US constituon disagrees. Beyond that, you're speculating... maybe they have, or maybe people have trouble lighting the PETN in their underwear and shoes.

Seriously, life is full of risk, and there's a balance in minimizing that risk without crushing liberty. You're willing to have your life be an open book for the sake of ephemeral gains... I'm not, and the law is on my side... as well as reason I think.

edit: Oh, and the amount of money it takes to monitor what's already being done is immense... what you're willing to go to would be absurd and clashes with your espoused fiscal views. How can you go completely ape-**** for security, willing to spend and sacrifice basic liberties... but when people on the other side of the isle go ape-**** for pie in the sky social reforms, THAT you notice.

 

[WhoWee]

The USSC, and therefore the current interpretation of the US constituon disagrees. Beyond that, you're speculating... maybe they have, or maybe people have trouble lighting the PETN in their underwear and shoes.

Seriously, life is full of risk, and there's a balance in minimizing that risk without crushing liberty. You're willing to have your life be an open book for the sake of ephemeral gains... I'm not, and the law is on my side... as well as reason I think.

edit: Oh, and the amount of money it takes to monitor what's already being done is immense... what you're willing to go to would be absurd and clashes with your espoused fiscal views. How can you go completely ape-**** for security, willing to spend and sacrifice basic liberties... but when people on the other side of the isle go ape-**** for pie in the sky social reforms, THAT you notice.

Let me clarify, please. We've already invested a great deal of money - government has expanded because of this already. Given the investment, the resources in place, and the knowledge already gained - it would be a waste to pull the plug now.

If we don't profile - based on 9 years of intelligence gathered - all of the expense and the personal sacrifices we've already made would be for naught.

I'm not saying start over an spend more - I'm saying maximize the return on the investment.

 

[russ_watters]

i find this sort of thinking unethical. the police do not serve themselves. they do not even serve the government. they serve you and i. and you and i have rights, and implicit in the rights according to the USSC is a right to privacy.

You cobbled together unrelated quotes there, but in any case: None of our rights are absolute, including our right to privacy -- and regardless, how is that relevant? Profiling doesn't require obtaining private information, so the right to privacy isn't relevant.

Please explain in more detail what you think is unethical in those quotes.

 

[russ_watters]

re bolded: Really, that's the beginning and end of it, but people are willing to cash in liberty for the illusion of security. They'll kill themselves with alcohol, tobacco, and unsafe driving, but the mere off-chance that bad men will strike somehow is paralyzing. It isn't that the threat isn't real or shouldn't be addressed, but our priorities are ****ed, and it leads to these fine patriots of the FBI and Christians In Action, etc... to snoop and feel justified. The irony is that it seems to so often come down to needing human intelligence to convince any higher up the line, that any of the sigint should be heeded.

We live in a warped world.

That warped world includes letting the government tell you you need to wear a seatbelt and telling you you can't buy a drop-side crib if you want one and forcing you to buy health insurance and buy-into a failing social security system. Where's the right to privacy in these issues? Your privacy is sacrosanct, but my money belongs to the community? I don't think so.

What irritates me about this issue is that liberals like to pick-and-choose their rights while pretending they favor a broader view.

And that doesn't even begin to go into the absurd hypocrisy regarding Wikileaks! Advocating privacy while simultaneously wanting to read others' mail is ridiculously hypocritical.

Seriously, life is full of risk, and there's a balance in minimizing that risk without crushing liberty. You're willing to have your life be an open book for the sake of ephemeral gains... I'm not, and the law is on my side... as well as reason I think.

You'd have to explain to me how "having [my] life be an open book" is "crushing liberty" when I don't recognize my own need for privacy. In other words: since my life is an open book, these issues present no sacrifice for me. Perhaps then it would be better if you explain why privacy is so important to you. Is it simply a worry about abuse? Does that worry have any foundation in reality? We all know the terrorism threat is real - I'd like to know if the abuse of information threat is real.

Except insofar as what's described in the OP is actually happening, I'm willing to let go the question of what the USSC would rule - but I am interested in hearing this "reason" you refer to.

[snip]Christians In Action, etc... to snoop and feel justified.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting "Christians in Action" may be tapping my phone?

Oh, and the amount of money it takes to monitor what's already being done is immense... what you're willing to go to would be absurd and clashes with your espoused fiscal views. How can you go completely ape-**** for security, willing to spend and sacrifice basic liberties... but when people on the other side of the isle go ape-**** for pie in the sky social reforms, THAT you notice.

You're not suggesting the FBI's budget is in the same order of magnitude as our annual Social Security spending, are you...? More to the point, a conservative believes that providing security is one of the core (if not The core) functions of government. Social programs? Not. There is absolutely no contradiction there.

 

[nismaratwork]

Let me clarify, please. We've already invested a great deal of money - government has expanded because of this already. Given the investment, the resources in place, and the knowledge already gained - it would be a waste to pull the plug now.

If we don't profile - based on 9 years of intelligence gathered - all of the expense and the personal sacrifices we've already made would be for naught.

I'm not saying start over an spend more - I'm saying maximize the return on the investment.

I don't mind profiling, I mind monitoring communications against the mission and legal restrictions placed on the relevant agencies.

 

[nismaratwork]

That warped world includes letting the government tell you you need to wear a seatbelt and telling you you can't buy a drop-side crib if you want one and forcing you to buy health insurance and buy-into a failing social security system. Where's the right to privacy in these issues? Your privacy is sacrosanct, but my money belongs to the community? I don't think so.

I think you've confused non-invasive oversight (seat-belt is the exception, and should be challenged) with invasion of privacy. Oversight is pulling cadmium laced cups, invasion of privacy is searching my home for them, or making owning them a crime rather than SELLING THEM.

What irritates me about this issue is that liberals like to pick-and-choose their rights while pretending they favor a broader view.

That's irritating about any ideology you argue with, when you yourself are doing the same, bound by another ideology.

And that doesn't even begin to go into the absurd hypocrisy regarding Wikileaks! Advocating privacy while simultaneously wanting to read others' mail is ridiculously hypocritical.

Agreed. I've been against this wikileaks event from the start, and clearly so.

You'd have to explain to me how "having [my] life be an open book" is "crushing liberty" when I don't recognize my own need for privacy. In other words: since my life is an open book, these issues present no sacrifice for me. Perhaps then it would be better if you explain why privacy is so important to you. Is it simply a worry about abuse? Does that worry have any foundation in reality? We all know the terrorism threat is real - I'd like to know if the abuse of information threat is real.

Your life is an open book? Give me all of your personal information then, and I promise I'll use it to protect you, and not for any negative act. Trust me.

Except insofar as what's described in the OP is actually happening, I'm willing to let go the question of what the USSC would rule - but I am interested in hearing this "reason" you refer to. Excuse me? Are you suggesting "Christians in Action" may be tapping my phone? You're not suggesting the FBI's budget is in the same order of magnitude as our annual Social Security spending, are you...? More to the point, a conservative believes that providing security is one of the core (if not The core) functions of government. Social programs? Not. There is absolutely no contradiction there.

OK, Christians In Action is, I now see... a real Christian group... when did that happen?! It was once a derogatory way of referring to the Central Intelligence Agency within some military branches and subunits. That should clarify the hyperbole... I don't believe my phone is tapped (beyond broad monitoring for chatter we're all subjected to, and I can live with that) by either CIA or any other US agency except the NSA, and I don't think there's a human listening on the other end... just an algorithm in case someone starts talking about the glory of Allah and airplanes.

As for the rest, no, I'm not suggesting anything at all. I said EXACTLY what I meant, meant what I said and stand by it. Yes, social programs are the far greater expenditure, but that's not to say that sigint and analysis doesn't cost a fortune as well.

ok, let me try and do an impression:

What irritates me about this issue is that conservatives like to believe they somehow are the only ones who want to be safe, or have a nation that can defend its interests. Conservatives like to pretend to hold a broader view, when really it's just about picking pet issues and pretending that's an ideology.

*bows*

 

[JaredJames]

I have to agree in the whole "I have nothing to hide" thing. This situation is akin to the UK identity card scheme where the government wanted to keep details of everyone on a national database.

How does the government monitoring my life change it in any way? It doesn't. In the same way my driving doesn't change when a police car pulls out behind me. I wasn't doing anything illegal before and I'm not doing anything illegal now.

 

[NobodySpecial]

IHow does the government monitoring my life change it in any way? It doesn't.

The government monitors you accessing a certain website (say PF) a terrorist suspect also uses that website (*) -you are now 'linked' to that terrorist, or animal rights activist, or anti-G20, anti student loans etc protestor (terrorist can get quite a wide definition)

So you apply for a job - the company also does defense work (or works with children, or has a government contract) they do an unofficial background check with the ID database and there are 'suspicions' about you. So you don't get asked for an interview - but you never knew why


* - given this is government IT it could just be that PF is hosted on the same hosting provider as the anti-G20 site. Or even that they both start with www so must be related.

 

[WhoWee]

The government monitors you accessing a certain website (say PF) a terrorist suspect also uses that website (*) -you are now 'linked' to that terrorist, or animal rights activist, or anti-G20, anti student loans etc protestor (terrorist can get quite a wide definition)

So you apply for a job - the company also does defense work (or works with children, or has a government contract) they do an unofficial background check with the ID database and there are 'suspicions' about you. So you don't get asked for an interview - but you never knew why


* - given this is government IT it could just be that PF is hosted on the same hosting provider as the anti-G20 site. Or even that they both start with www so must be related.

Are you certain of these examples?

 

[JaredJames]

Are you certain of these examples?

Seems unrealistic to me. I know there are cases of people's names being mixed up and they lose jobs because the company checked them against someone else's record. Criminal record checks generally aren't that thorough to pick up details such as potential connections (sex offenders have gotten into school jobs).

I'd also say that if this is the case, it highlights a flaw in the system and not in the monitoring itself.

I visit PF, it is noted to share a server with an anti-G20 site, it is flagged. Unless it is checked and proven there is a connection between me and anti-G20 supporters then it shouldn't be something that comes up on a record check.

 

[nismaratwork]

I have to agree in the whole "I have nothing to hide" thing. This situation is akin to the UK identity card scheme where the government wanted to keep details of everyone on a national database.

How does the government monitoring my life change it in any way? It doesn't. In the same way my driving doesn't change when a police car pulls out behind me. I wasn't doing anything illegal before and I'm not doing anything illegal now.

It depends a lot on your government, and I'd add, how well they secure that information. I will say this however: WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

Let me clarify: We don't all have criminal or fundamentally terrible behaviour to hide, but we all WANT to hide some things. I'd just add; what if (relating to another thread) COICA goes through and you're suddenly wanting to access perfectly legal content in another country, but now it's a crime... what do you do? Do you STILL have nothing to hide? Times change, but databses and dossiers remain... what you don't care to hide now you may want to in the future... or maybe you just don't want the FBI to know that you can't get it up without medication, or that you were an addict in your teens because they take the anonymous out of *A. Maybe you're a perfectly good guy, but also gay, and you feel that's your business alone or worse, it later becomes something considered criminal (as it was once).

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is not a reasonable once, as much as I respect you personally, this argument doesn't work.

NOTE: The examples I gave are all pulled from whole cloth, with none representing personal issues or anyone else's issues.

 

[nismaratwork]

Seems unrealistic to me. I know there are cases of people's names being mixed up and they lose jobs because the company checked them against someone else's record. Criminal record checks generally aren't that thorough to pick up details such as potential connections (sex offenders have gotten into school jobs).

I'd also say that if this is the case, it highlights a flaw in the system and not in the monitoring itself.

I visit PF, it is noted to share a server with an anti-G20 site, it is flagged. Unless it is checked and proven there is a connection between me and anti-G20 supporters then it shouldn't be something that comes up on a record check.

It depends on the check, and it depends on how intelligent, trained, educated and reasonable the person is who's running it. You're throwing a lot on the mercy of an institution that is by its very nature, changeable.

I personally can say that if you're willing to pay a minimal amount of money, you'd be shocked what you can find about someone. You can get access to meta-lists made by tracing purchases with discount grocery, pharmacy and other cards to get an idea of what you buy. You can get any records of lawsuits they've been involved in, where they live and have lived, their phone numbers, cell provider and number, vehicles, family members and THEIR info and of course criminal background checks.

Put it all together and for between $20-$500 USD you can go WAY past being able to socially engineer yourself as another person... you're able to get a real picture of their life, likes, dislikes, finances, criminality or lack thereof, are they litigious, travel history...

That's a PRIVATE citizen using LEGAL means, so when a sex offender makes it into a school it is the school's fault. Oh, the criminal used a fake name?... shocker! Unless he's James Bond, check the identity he's claiming using the aforementioned means and you'll at least know they're not who they claim to be. You can't look at the failures of people to use existing resources as an argument for their inefficacy. I think filtering telecom traffic through a big sieve for key-phrases, names and such is a fine system where national security is concerned, but when it comes to building a file... you need a human to sort the coincidence and chaff from the grain as it were. That just isn't done enough, or well enough when it is.

 

[JaredJames]

It depends a lot on your government, and I'd add, how well they secure that information.

British government, not very well.

I will say this however: WE ALL HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE.

You know this? You know me? Between facebook, PF and Google (my accounts) there is very little you couldn't find about me on the net alone.

The "I have nothing to hide" argument is not a reasonable once, as much as I respect you personally, this argument doesn't work.

Well doing something in your past does not mean you have done / will do it again. That's where innocent until proven guilty comes in. They see you were an addict, they may get suspicious, but unless they can prove you are connected to the recent drug issue there's nothing they can do.
If it's something that doesn't change so easily (being gay for example), if it was made illegal in the future then you are breaking the law. If it's on record and you are prosecuted the monitoring has done its job. I know it sounds harsh (and I have nothing against gay people) but if being gay was illegal, whether you hide it or not you are breaking the law and all that not monitoring people does is alter the if/when of getting caught. (Think of it like speeding, many people do it and hide it but every now and then people get caught. By adding monitoring [in this case average speed cameras over prolonged periods of motorway] you simply increase the chances of catching law breakers).

 

[JaredJames]

you need a human to sort the coincidence and chaff from the grain as it were. That just isn't done enough, or well enough when it is.

Completely agree with you there.

 

[nismaratwork]

British government, not very well.


You know this? You know me? Between facebook, PF and Google (my accounts) there is very little you couldn't find about me on the net alone.


Well doing something in your past does not mean you have done / will do it again. That's where innocent until proven guilty comes in. They see you were an addict, they may get suspicious, but unless they can prove you are connected to the recent drug issue there's nothing they can do.
If it's something that doesn't change so easily (being gay for example), if it was made illegal in the future and it was on record you were gay then you are breaking the law. The monitoring has done its job. I know it sounds harsh (and I have nothing against gay people) but if being gay was illegal, whether you hide it or not you are breaking the law and all that not monitoring people does is alter the if/when of getting caught. (Think of it like speeding, many people do it and hide it but every now and then people get caught. By adding monitoring [in this case average speed cameras over prolonged periods of motorway] you simply increase the chances of catching law breakers).

re: bold... You're ABSOLUTELY right, but life isn't always so fair, and neither is the government or employers. Given that you just pointed out that the UK doesn't secure its data well... I could see 'trouble ahead', as the saying goes.

Now, I don't KNOW you have something to hide, but if you didn't I'd KNOW you weren't human. Everyone at least THINKS they have something to hide... it's human nature... it's unavoidable.

Now, the speed monitoring is not a bad idea, but the consequence is proportional to the act. You're actually being caught breaking a law... this is about gathering and collating information without either of those being the case.