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.
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.