|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
Posted on 04/11/2003 11:08:59 AM PDT by Pro-Bush
|
|
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
And just how are they gonna get THIS data?
That should be quite interesting - developing a set of assumptions and then developing a set of test data containing data that matches those assumptions to see if the data models can detect patterns. I'm SURE our terrorist enemies will be this considerate when they leave their data trails for TIA to detect. "Dammit, Achmid, quit being so rude! Don't pay cash for that! Use your credit card so TIA can spot it!"
The more I think about TIA, the more ludicrous the notion gets. I get very few telemarketing calls and very little junk mail. Why? Because I try to pay cash as often as possible (the exception being gasoline, it's very convenient to pay at the pump, but gasoline purchases only tell someone a pattern of roughly where I travel). It won't be too hard for terrorists to avoid leaving a significant data trail - the reason so much data is available for most Americans is that they don't care how much data they leave in their wake. But terrorists will care.
And much of the data that the creators of TIA want simply isn't available legally. For example, one item TIA wants to trace is gun purchases - but if someone makes a $400 charge at Wal-Mart, did they buy a gun or a Stairmaster? TIA would need to tap into the background check database, something they are prohibited by law from doing. So when they talk about what they want to capture, some of the data is commercial available, but much of it will require legal changes that I will not support.
It won't be too hard for terrorists to avoid leaving a significant data trail
The Pentagon's Total Information Awareness Project: Americans ... Terrorists already immerse themselves in mainstream society, even using their real names and official government documents. They can learn and anticipate the trigger patterns that will supposedly generate red flags, and then avoid them. You won't see terrorists buying one-way airline tickets, for example. Because terrorists will resemble ordinary people, TIA inevitably means magnifying-glass surveillance of ordinary folks, wasting more time, all in a vicious, misdirected circle. So when they talk about what they want to capture, some of the data is commercial available, but much of it will require legal changes that I will not support.
Bush loyalists who cannot conceive of the current White House putting such power to despotic purposes should contemplate the fact that sooner or later this power will be wielded by an Al Gore or a Hillary Rodham Clinton. Those who recall the recent Clinton era should not have trouble imagining a situation in the not too distant future when pro-lifers, home schoolers, gun owners, vocal constitutionalists, and other patriots are officially designated as security threats.
Beyond the danger of intentional despotism, there is the danger inherent in all bureaucracies. According to the Federal Register, information collected by CAPPS II would be kept on file for 50 years. Ever suffer the humiliation, frustration, and costly inconvenience of a bad credit report that falsely charged you with a nonexistent billing or bankruptcy, or other misreported financial dealings? Millions of people have faced such ordeals. Getting the credit reporting agencies to correct these mistakes can be a near-impossible undertaking. Imagine trying to get the federal bureaucracy to correct your CAPPS II security file so you can fly.
According to a February 28th CNN report, Transportation Department spokesman Chet Lunner said the Federal Register notice stating the background information will be stored for 50 years is inaccurate. Mr. Lunner said such information will be held only for people deemed security risks. Verbal statements by spokesmen like Mr. Lunner, however, do not override printed regulations. And even if the Federal Register is corrected to reflect a policy in line with Mr. Lunner’s statement, it doesn’t provide any assurance against continued encroachments or solve the problems facing travelers falsely labeled as security threats.
Will Americans soon have to undergo similar screening for train, bus, and subway transportation as well? Will it progress to internal checkpoints on streets and highways: "May we see your identification and travel documents please?" Meanwhile, many of the same legislators acquiescing to these new restrictions on American citizens also are supporting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and failing to enforce our borders.
They're not. That's the great thing. The only way for this to work is for "the government" to get its hands on data sets that don't exist.
TIA will flop around for a few years and then die when someone in Congress says, "Hey, it's been five years and umpteen million dollars and TIA hasn't caught one person."
Gosh, why don't they just ask Wal-Mart?
TIA would need to tap into the background check database, something they are prohibited by law from doing. So when they talk about what they want to capture, some of the data is commercial available, but much of it will require legal changes that I will not support.
Actually, finding out that you bought a gun from Wal-Mart is a matter of paying Wal-Mart for access to their database. Wal-Mart knows what you bought.
... so we have to spend more money on it.
I would take the government more seriously on this, except for the fact that they had everything they needed to stop the 9/11 attack except for the will to ask for a search warrant. Political correctness stopped that, political correctness prevents TSA from doing anything useful at the airports, and political correctness will stop this from being useful for stopping terrorism. Useful for internal surveillance and tyranny, yes. Preventing terrorism, no.
Don't bet on it.
Where is the legal mechanism to compel Wal-Mart to release that data?
Actually, finding out that you bought a gun from Wal-Mart is a matter of paying Wal-Mart for access to their database. Wal-Mart knows what you bought.
Now, what if I paid cash and did not provide my name at checkout?
None needed. The gummint just pays Wal-Mart's going rate for extranet connectivity.
Now, what if I paid cash and did not provide my name at checkout?
Except that, in the case of firearms purchases...that isn't an option.
However, does not leaving a data trail rise to the level of probable cause? In order for your idea to bear fruition to the feds, IMO they would have to significantly lower the threshhold of probable cause. There are many, many people who are concerned about their privacy but are not engaging in criminal activity - whereas probable cause means there is a clear indication that the suspect activity rises to the criminal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.