Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

OneDOJ to Offer National Criminal Database to Law Enforcement

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the you-can-run-but-you-can't-hide dept.

Privacy 184

Degrees writes "The Washington Post is reporting that the Justice Department is building a massive database, known as 'OneDOJ'. The system allows state and local police officers around the country to search millions of case files from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and other federal law enforcement agencies. The system already holds approximately 1 million case records and is projected to triple in size over the next three years. The files include investigative reports, criminal-history information, details of offenses, and the names, addresses and other information of criminal suspects or targets. From the article: 'Civil-liberties and privacy advocates say the scale and contents of such a database raise immediate privacy and civil rights concerns, in part because tens of thousands of local police officers could gain access to personal details about people who have not been arrested or charged with crimes. The little-noticed program has been coming together over the past year and a half. It already is in use in pilot projects with local police in Seattle, San Diego and a handful of other areas, officials said.'"

cancel ×

184 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

About time (4, Insightful)

Salvance (1014001) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398630)

I actually think this is a great thing. It always seemed ridiculous to me that law enforcement might need to spend hours/days retrieving data from other agencies in criminal proceedings.

Re:About time (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398702)

If all it was was linking criminal databases between localities, that would be one thing. Clearly, the ability to see if someone has a criminal record and/or a warrant out for his arrest in another state is valuable information. However, tracking other sorts of data on people, even when they have not been charged or convicted of anything, as the summary seems to suggest, is a whole different kettle of fish.

Re:About time (4, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398954)

However, tracking other sorts of data on people, even when they have not been charged or convicted of anything, as the summary seems to suggest, is a whole different kettle of fish.

You know the saying amongt traffic patrol officers: "follow someone long enough and he's bound to commit a traffic violation". Well, same thing with OneDOJ: collect enough information about someone and you're bound to find something to incriminate this person eventually.

Incidentally (and cutting short the Godwin Law), this is exactly what the Gestapo was doing prior to, and during WW2: they collected huge masses of information about everybody, and it was well know that they could pull a jacket on almost anybody in Germany and find enough "evidence" to arrest that person.

Re:About time (4, Insightful)

yoder (178161) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399606)

That seems to be the ultimate objective with those in power. Keep track of everyone everywhere and you will find that everyone is a criminal of some sort. Those in power can better control their people when they have leverage.

Citizen Joe Smoe: "Senator Longbottom, I am a voter and concerned citizen and would like you to vote against this upcoming legislation that will further erode our privacy."

Senator Longbottom: "You know, I would give this privacy concern of yours more of my time, but hey, you illegally downloaded three songs this year and you have a pirated copy of Windows 98. You're a criminal and you want me to defend your privacy? Give me a break."

Re:About time (3, Insightful)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400120)


Yes. I wish the public would get this. We're all criminals! To add someone to the database just find something and convict the, For the few who have managed to avoid breaking any of the multitude of laws (and how do you know you haven't there are so many), the laws will just continue to be piled up until there's something you will break whether its criminalising the smoking of relaxing substances or using a PGP key that hasn't been registered with the government. When needed, you will be a criminal. You may not even need to be convicted. There are thousands of DNA samples preserved by the UK police of people who were never convicted of anything and their names are on the police database.

And sepearate to the information on the crimes you may or may not have committed could be a lot of personal information that you may not wish to be searchable by the huge number of people that have access to this.

Re:About time (3, Informative)

WML MUNSON (895262) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399646)

"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him" -Cardinal Richelieu (French Minister and Cardinal. 1585-1642)

Re:About time (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399722)

...they [The Gestapo] could pull a jacket on almost anybody in Germany and find enough "evidence" to arrest that person.

      At least we don't shoot people for their "crimes". Yet.

Re:About time (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400288)

At least we don't shoot people for their "crimes". Yet.

If you use the colloquial meaning of "shoot" (as in "shoot up"), yes we do. [wikipedia.org]

Up until 2004, Utah could impose death by firing squad as an execution sentence; the sentence is apparently still applicable to the few convicts that were sentenced before that moratorium and are still on death row.

So, if you were being ironic, ok. If you were being semi-ironic, well, ok. But in truth, we (our representatives in the government--all branches) do shoot people for crimes. My main worry is the sliding window of what constitutes a crime. And maybe, if you were being semi-ironic, that's what you were worrying about too.

Re:About time (3, Informative)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400410)

So, if you were being ironic, ok.

      What I was referring to was the classic "We have found out that you have committed crimes against the state, here is a gun. If you are still in the room when we come back in 2 minutes, we will shoot you and your whole family" line from the Gestapo. We're not QUITE there yet, but soon...

Re:About time (1)

cain (14472) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400126)

It's good to know that there is at least one cop who doesn't support this fully. I'm glad to see that Boss Hogg hasn't totally cowed you Roscoe.

Cardinal Richelieu quote (1)

alexandreracine (859693) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400988)

"follow someone long enough and he's bound to commit a traffic violation"
"Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre."

* Translation: "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."

And that was before 1642.

Re:About time (5, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399112)

The USSC has already established that local, state and federal government can accumulate information on people when it feels that such accumulation is in its interests, and further, that it can expose that information to the public, making a complete mockery of any idea of privacy.

The precedent was set using sex offenders and in particular, those sex offenders who had been convicted prior to the instantiation of the registry laws. Forcing those individuals to be on those lists was ruled "not punishment" and hence not subject to ex post facto as laid out in the constitution and subsequent court decisions.

Now the government can list anyone, anytime, on any list it likes, and there is nothing US citizens can do. Other lists have been showing up and causing trouble such as the no-fly list. Nothing anyone can do about that, either. Lists aren't a bad thing, according to every branch of the government.

The fact is, when US citizens gave up those freedoms to hand that little extra bit of crucifixion to sex offenders, you gave it up for everyone else, too. US citizens should have screamed bloody murder at the registry laws, you should have screamed bloody murder at any attempt at ex post facto punishment, and you should have screamed bloody murder at the USSC's ridiculous decision that "registry" is a local, state and federal interest.

The dead, smug silence at the fate of the sex offender - and the "terrorist" - has led the USA to a pitiful shadow of the freedom it once stood for. Sophistry has undermined ex post facto, habeas corpus, the commerce clause, the 2nd amendment, freedom of speech, and now... now you're worried about the feds sharing information. Good luck climbing back up that slope.

Re:About time (1)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399590)

"The USSC has already established..."

FYI, it's usually abbreviated SCOTUS, as in SCotUS.

Re:About time (1)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 7 years ago | (#17401288)

Taking away the right to bear arms for offenses committed before the passage of the law is another example.

18 USC 922(g)(8) and 18 USC 922(g)(9) are examples. 10 year sentence for violation (18 USC 924(a)(2)).

That's ex-post facto, since taking away the right to bear arms is a punishment, and this punishment (18 USC 922(g)(8) and 18 USC 922(g)9)) is being imposed on people even though it was not a punishment in force at the time of the act which resulted in the loss of the right to bear arms.

It would be like passing a law giving people a 10 year sentence if posted anything on the Internet (1st Amendment instead of 2nd) after they had driven more than 10 mph over the speed limit (minor criminal) or if they'd ever lost a lawsuit (civil), and furthermore, imposing the penalty for acts committed before the new law was passed. Yes, absurd, but a clear parallel to the 18 USC 922(g)(8)/(9) case.

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398796)

... until you're arrested in Florida for an unpaid parking ticket in Ohio.

Re:About time (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398810)

Except when a bad cop uses the database to further their own enterprise.

And we know there's never been cops that work for organized crime or, maybe perhaps running their own enterprise. Now, they will have the ability to expand operations in a massive way.

I agree with your general principal, that law enforcement agencies need to work together more easily, but this should be accomplished through IT standards and a legislative agenda. We've got NIST to do this kind of thing. Banks in the U.S. have done this with the guiding hand of the federal gov't behind them, why should law enforcement be any different?

Re:About time (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400650)

Because cops have guns, and can break into your house in the middle of the night and shoot you. Banks don't do that.

Cops can, and should, be held to the highest moral, legal, and ethical standards, not the lowest ones.

Re:Banks and Cops (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17401044)

Because cops have guns, and can break into your house in the middle of the night and shoot you. Banks don't do that.

I would argue banks have similar powers though. For example, the bank can and will adjust your balance due to their claiming an accounting error. The burden is on me to prove their corrections are wrong. My wife photocopies the checks she deposits because she got burned by the bank on this one repeatedly. It's not literal life and death, but it's almost as important. Money is one of the very few things that everyone in the industrialized world measures out to the hundreth decimal point. How many things can you say the same about?

If the Feds say they want one criminal DB to rule them all then I get nervous. Why? Abuse is rampant despite whatever ethical standard or legal penalty present.

Re:About time (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400482)

Indeed yes; a more efficient Police is needed to support a more efficient Police State. Ease of access of your data (and if your data is in there OF COURSE you are a criminal that needs data kept on them) is essential.
Perhaps all police personnel files should be shared with Wal*Mart while we are at it. the discount on uniform purchase (sale on Jack Boots for example) would certainly offset any security concern of sharing home addresses with minimum wage earning clerks with possible previous criminal records... You see? unforseen consequences ALWAYS happen

Re:About time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17401144)

I just wish I could see my file and nobody else's.

An Acer Ferrari laptop (1, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398718)

To the first person who cracks this database and enters cases for Gates as a baby eating canibal and Ballmer as a serial chair chucker.

Re:An Acer Ferrari laptop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398902)

Done. Now e-mail me the laptop

Bill Gates' piracy confession (1)

giafly (926567) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399232)

WSJ: You watch physics lectures and Harlem Globetrotters [on YouTube]?
Gates: This social-networking thing takes you to crazy places.
WSJ: But those were stolen, correct?
Gates: Stolen's a strong word. It's copyrighted content that the owner wasn't paid for. So yes.
Tue, 06/20/2006 [computerworld.com]

As another poster has said, the problem with this database is that even the most honest among us commit some crimes so it makes it easier for the police to arrest anyone. Prison space is finite so in practice they arrest the people they don't like, which could be you. It certainly won't be billionaires.

Useful Cause (2, Insightful)

jmickle (941634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398740)

This surely could have a useful cause to see if people are wanted criminals in other states. Also can cut down the time for the feds to figure out what to do with you. It is ridiculous how it does take up to weeks just to pull a case number from a simple case. Consolidation seems to be the key here! hope they have a good redundant backup system :-P (anyone see record clearing coming soon? )

Re:Useful Cause (1)

Enoxice (993945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398788)

Redundancy? Of course it will have redundancy; they're going to put an unencrypted copy of the database on every single DoJ laptop and desktop, unencrypted and accessable from the web.

Re:Useful Cause (1)

jmickle (941634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400312)

LOL will this include the child porn people? Cause don't they use examples of the child porn caught from the person. At this point would it now become a child porn website? LOL

Like Crimnet (1)

MECC (8478) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398744)

Minnesota has something like called 'crimnet'. Its so inaccurate and awkward that many cops to do use it give up and use commercial web sites (who in turn mine data from crimnet and make it easier to search). Its harder now to correct bad information, and bad people get away while good people get permanently nailed - without ever having committed a crime.

This looks like a great opportunity for terrorists, many of whom have better technical resources that the feds.

Weeeee (1, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398760)

More centralized information about everyone. Make it easier for the Big Brother to control everything! Exactly what we all need.

Re:Weeeee (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398910)

This is not a troll comment.

Your simply illustrating a point by bring absurd.. /. mods don't understand this form of argument..

I also happen to agree with your point. Nice one. its true. We DO need more Government! This United Police States of America is a wreck and only government laws can fix it. ;-)

Consumer Cops? (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398784)

I don't like this because I think it has the potential for massive abuse. They also can use it to cross reference consumer databases and also look up information past offences. You should not be charged with crimes based solely on the fact that you have plead guilty before, sometimes people plead guilty for crimes they don't commit.

Imagine if you forget to pay Geico one morning you could have your RFID license flagged and be arrested on your way to work for not having insurance.

Also they say association ? does that mean your gang?

This is not a good thing.

Before You Panic ... (1)

carpeweb (949895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398806)

... Remember that the FBI (under DOJ) can't find it's ass with both hands when it concerns IT. Their pre-9/11 systems overhaul/upgrade is still a massive failure. Any reason to believe this will be different?

Re:Before You Panic ... (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398842)

No and thats another problem.. what happens when this ubergov database gets hacked.

This is just a bad idea from start to finish.. but its going to happen.. one way or another this is the future of the USA.

Re:Before You Panic ... (2, Interesting)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399208)

what happens when this ubergov database gets hacked.

What makes you think it will need to be hacked? You can go right on the web and check to see if your neighbor is a sex offender today. The information isn't secret or restricted. Exactly the opposite, in fact. The government thinks you should know. Odds are excellent they'll think you should know if your neighbor is a mugger or a thief or a drug user or a mad bomber as well. Or... if they might be at some point in the future! After all, you did buy bleach at the grocery store last week...

Re:Before You Panic ... (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399414)

Really.. bleach and cold medication.. I must be making microwave crank at home.

The sex offender thing is out of control also. I knew a guy that was caught in high school streeaking in the mall and he was convicted as a "sex offender".

Re:Before You Panic ... (1)

carpeweb (949895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400564)

I meant that I didn't think it would get off the ground, so there won't be anything to hack, at least not for a long while.

Opt out. (1)

The Neck (194515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398818)


Wikicop you say?

The_neck.
.

Oh come now (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398860)

"'Civil-liberties and privacy advocates say the scale and contents of such a database raise immediate privacy and civil rights concerns, in part because tens of thousands of local police officers could gain access to personal details about people who have not been arrested or charged with crimes."

Since when did the DOJ concern itself with such minor details as privacy and/or actually being charged with a crime to jail people?

If this super sluth of a data base goes the way of most of the goverments attempts it will be just another costly fubar project that will never work right and slip out of sight.

Re:Oh come now (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399754)

The most interesting thing about this quote is that it started page 2 of the article. Page 1 seemed to take an informative tone, but it mostly tasted like Pablum. Talk about not rocking the boat. Don't want people accidentally reading something about "civil liberties" and thinking it applies to them. mandelbr0t

Privacy vs. Protection? (4, Interesting)

Scothoser (523461) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398880)

This is an age-old question, and one that will never be answered, I'm afraid. Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies? How is this different than local police creating their own database of case files? What does it mean to have the right to privacy? These are questions that have never fully been answered, I'm afraid. The first problem is that the US Constitution currently does not , and yet it's the one right that we constantly want protected. [usconstitution.net]

The other problem is that, even if the Constitution guaranteed the right to privacy, it would only guarantee that right to it's citizens. If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates [wsu.edu] . But is that so? Has that been determined? I am unaware of any court case or legislation that guarantees the citizenship of convicted criminals, nor of any that revokes their citizenship.

I think the first thing that needs to be done with regards to privacy concerns is to amend the constitution to allow for the right to privacy. Once this is complete, then the privacy advocates will have a platform on which to base their objections that is rooted within the Constitution. From there, other concerns can be addressed, such as the citizenship status of convicted criminals.

That being said, I support any collaboration between law enforcement agencies in protecting the citizenry, and do not see any abuses that have not already been in place since Government has been in place. The question is, are there any statistical evidence to support the collaboration in the apprehension and conviction of law breakers vs. the eventual mistakes and abuses that are feared?

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17399054)

No. It's about who interprets data, and their motives.

And it's about a one-way deal for now. They collect. They interpret. They arrest. If they get bad guys, I'm all for it, but I have to ask exactly what we're doing to enhance OUR ability to track THEIR actions?

Nothing whatever, aside from people with movie-taking cell phones.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (1)

k1e0x (1040314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399158)

>> If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no
>> longer citizens?

You might ask José Padilla.

If you are charged with a crime you have the 5th and 6th and 7th amendments because your rights are in jeopardy and need extra protection. If you are found guilty you have the 8th amendment to grant you a fair, just, and humane sentence.

The answer is, yes they are still citizens and still have rights.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (4, Insightful)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399358)

If someone chooses to break the laws governing the citizenry, they are then rejecting the citizenry. Does that mean that they are no longer citizens? Socrates felt so, as outlined in Plato's The Apology of Socrates.

The problem with creating a permanent criminal class is that there is no possibility of redemption or reform. The only reasonable path is to have two, and only two, classes of crimes. The unredeemable, in which case imprisonment is life without parole, or death; and the redeemable, where the criminal's debt to society is considered 100% paid upon completion of the assigned punishment or rehabilitative course.

By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.

Today, a background check is considered normal in order to get a job. This includes your criminal records, if any. If you have a criminal record, you're not going to get any job for which there is competition (in other words, most of them.) You're a permanent criminal, unredeemable, permanently evil and a bottom-feeder.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399758)

By releasing people back into society who have no hope of ever climbing out of the gutter, we continually increase a class of people who not only can do us harm, but have already proven they will, and who are motivated, by us, to do it ( or something else criminal) again. The motivation is simple: We won't let them do anything else.

Let's not forget that when we combine the redeemable and unredeemable in the same facility (not that I really believe that anyone out there is literally unredeemable, but they're useful labels for this conversation) the redeemable tend to shift towards the unredeemable. I know that if I were thrown into prison for something stupid, and I got assraped, my first stop out of jail would be to go pick up some cached firearms and my second stop would be the DA's house, the third the Judge's, and so on. Oh sure, it wouldn't help me - I'd probably just go right back in. But at least I'd be improving the legal system.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (1)

HazMathew (207212) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400300)

Interesting. Now more than ever its important to know your rights and a good attorney. All US police officers bend the rules, lie, and use coercion to get you to give up your rights so you admit guilt before you are given a fair trail. It makes them look good, it's part of their training. In some cases now (DUIs) you are guilty before proven innocent, not the other way around as we are often told. On traffic stops what do you hear most common? "Do you know why I pulled you over?". Answering anything other than "no sir" and you will most likely admit guilt. Remember your rights everyone. A few tips to police encounters:

1. Never admit guilt, but do cooperate
2. Answer questions with questions
3. State clearly that you do not submit to any searches

Stay safe.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400826)

State clearly that you do not submit to any searches

This is a dead-certain way to get searched, just so you know. If you want to take this approach, you need a hidden video camera and sensitive microphones in your cabin and all around the exterior of your car, as well as a thoroughly and professionally hidden recording system. Which will serve you well in court, but only one time. Because the fact that you pulled this off will circulate through the entire police force in about a day. Perhaps even the entire nation. [youtube.com]

You can claim you said this (and you can say it, too) but the cop will simply deny it, and your credibility cannot overpower the cops in court without an entire car full of sober, socially respected companions (I'm talking, bankers, lawyers, doctors, judges, cops.) A video recording, at least at the moment, can do the job for you.

The bottom line: Any action you take that depends upon the sense of justice of the cop, or your word against theirs, has a very, very low probability of succeeding.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400534)

I know that if I were thrown into prison for something stupid, and I got assraped, my first stop out of jail would be to go pick up some cached firearms and my second stop would be the DA's house, the third the Judge's, and so on. Oh sure, it wouldn't help me - I'd probably just go right back in.

The system actually encourages this kind of thinking by making sure that your job, possessions, friendships, future employability, finances and family relationships all suffer to their very limits, as well as the abuse above and beyond simple incarceration you would suffer in prison. It is only a matter of time before someone does exactly what you're describing, and once it starts... I doubt it will stop.

Also, one should not forget the thirteenth amendment which specifically offers you up, as a criminal, to the ranks of legal slavery and indentured servitude.

Just a matter of time. If not you, then some other infuriated and abused citizen.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (1)

novus ordo (843883) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400940)

Hm the quote at the bottom of the page seems remarkably appropriate:
The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. -- Oscar Wilde

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (1)

Ian Alexander (997430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400154)

"This is an age-old question, and one that will never be answered, I'm afraid. Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies?"

Um, no, it was answered a long time ago by a fella by name of Benjamin Franklin.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

A government's only legitimate purpose is in protecting your rights and there's something wrong when it starts trying to justify the erosion of those very rights to ease their protection. I suppose they think that a smaller target is harder to hit.

Re:Privacy vs. Protection? (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400696)

"Is it better to give up privacy rights for the sake of better communication and collaboration between law enforcement agencies?"

No. Next question?

"it would only guarantee that right to it's citizens."

Where does this idea come from? The Constitution says NOTHING about the rights of citizens (except for voting). It lists some of the inalienable rights of all persons that the US Government is explicitly forbidden from infringing.

ObLOTR (3, Funny)

LittleGuy (267282) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398892)

OneDOJ to rule them all, OneDOJ to find them,
OneDOJ to bring them all and in the darkness remand them
To the Land of Maricopa where the Arpaio [wikipedia.org] lie.

Re:ObLOTR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17399042)

I had to correct the last line: To the Land of Maricopa where the victims of Arpaio lie.

Hmmm (1)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398896)

It's not so much the government I would be worried about abusing this system, it's the contractors hired to create/maintain it - as well as the possibility of commercialisation of certain parts of it. Let's say company X will pay so many millions to get details on the type of car a certain demographic drives (of course anonymous to avoid civil liberties being eroded) - how far would they allow this and how much money would it take to start getting full data - (for those who say it wouldn't be allowed, and example of it in action is the DVLA in the UK which issues drivers licenses - who sell all of the data required for you driving license for as little as $4 each to any company that request it). This is of course forgetting the drive that companies/hackers/criminal gangs would have to get access to that database - whether it be through a human access point (having someone with authority use it for them, or finding bugs - the monetary rewards available for the data that could be obtained would more than enough pay teams of hackers to try and gain access.

I have the worry that although this may be implemented in the best of faiths, it will eventually be perverted and used for a number of different reasons that it was originally developed for.

New Market Demographic? (1)

cez (539085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398914)

Can't wait for them to realize the marketing potential they have there! Names & addresses of everyone with a criminal disposition, no matter if they've been charged with anything! I wouldn't mind paying them for that information so I could send out some pamphlets on my new crow-bar, garunteed to break any window or you're money back*...

*Some restrictions apply.

Re:New Market Demographic? (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399122)

> Can't wait for them to realize the marketing potential they have there! Names & addresses of everyone with a criminal disposition, no matter if they've been charged with anything!

Wait, are we talking about OneDOJ or myspace.com?

Problematic (4, Insightful)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398920)

The files include investigative reports, criminal-history information, details of offenses, and the names, addresses and other information of criminal suspects or targets.

The big problem I see with this is that it encourages local police to target people (someone who gets pulled over for speeding) on the assumption that if the Feds investigated them, then they must be criminals. I tell all of my DUI clients that if they have been convicted once of DUI, they should never ever drive within ten hours of drinking ANY alcohol for the rest of their lives. The reason is that every time they get pulled over, the cop will see that conviction and will look very hard for evidence of drinking.

But this database has more than just arrest and conviction records. So it is going to cause heightened suspicion and prejudicial treatment of people who have never committed a crime in their lives.

If they can't get enough evidence to convict you or even to arrest you, then how reliable could their information be?

I see little reason for them to be sharing this information on a large scale with local police departments, except that it does give them the power to insert negative information about political activists who some anonymous person in the FBI may not like.

This is certainly not good for civil liberties, and I question its value for fighting crime.

Re:Problematic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17401032)

I tell all of my DUI clients that if they have been convicted once of DUI, they should never ever drive within ten hours of drinking ANY alcohol for the rest of their lives.

So, they didn't know it was a bad idea the first time they did it?

Also, I've had a few drinks and later drove, but I was sober. I have passed 2 field sobriety tests in over a year. So I don't buy that someone who has a DUI is anymore at risk than someone who hasn't. Either they're sober or they aren't.

Re:Problematic (1)

Frank T. Lofaro Jr. (142215) | more than 7 years ago | (#17401314)

Many lawyers would rather tell them to keep it up, and keep making the money. :)

When I was in College.... (3, Insightful)

Newer Guy (520108) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398926)

When I was in college in the early 1970's, I participated in the Students for a Democratic Socciety (SDS). I was involved in the Boston area, and helped The Socialist Workers Party do a radio show on the MIT and Northeastern Univ. radio stations there. Some years later I did a Freedom of Information Act request for any FBI stuff. A bunch of it came back, primarily from my activities with the radio show. Now, remember, nothing I did was illegal or even immoral. Nor was I charged with any crime or even ever contacted by the FBI. All this was doe secretly without my knowledge.

I have a real problem with any bored local police officer sitting in his cruiser anywhere to be able to simply type in my name and get information about me from over 30 years ago! Frankly, it's none of their business!. Something similar to this actually has already happened to me. I was driving a car I had just bought with my old plates attached (perfectly legal in Massachusetts for 48 hours provided you have the bill of sale, etc.). I stopped for gas and when I came back from paying a cop was there who wanted to know why my plate number came up with a different car. Turns out he was bored and so he begain typing in license plates of nearby cars int his terminal in the cruiser. What's to stop him turning around and typing my name (which he got from the license plate) into the FBI search?

This gives the cops WAY too much information and power to pry into our private affairs!!

All in the cause of TERRORISM, of courser!! :(

Re:When I was in College.... (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398996)

What exactly is private about the fact that you did a radio show?

Re:When I was in College.... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399310)

What exactly is private about the fact that you did a radio show?

      It was a "commie" radio show ;)

Re:When I was in College.... (1)

Brandybuck (704397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399768)

It's not about privacy. It's about wants. The grandparent didn't "want" people knowing he did a radio show. Thus his righteous indignation that cops have the ability to discover that he did a radio show. It's a very shallow philosophy of rights, but it's par for the course these days. If you don't want something, scream bloody murder about your "rights", and you'll be modded up on Slashdot.

Re:When I was in College.... (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400796)

Hmm. I think that the right to be left alone is a pretty fundamental notion. Justice Brandeis agrees with me, and disagrees with you.

Is that a shallow philosophy of rights? If I'm not free to go about my business without surveillance, I'm not free at all.

Re:When I was in College.... (1)

Daemonstar (84116) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399106)

All queries in systems like that are tracked; you can't just go running criminal history checks on someone because you're bored. It'll show up, and you will probably be questioned about it. This may vary from state-to-state and from database-to-database.

OTOH, an officer has to have probable cause to initiate an investigation, otherwise the case will be thrown out. If I find someone walking down the street, I can question them all day long, but they can simply walk away and I can do nothing to stop it unless there is probable cause that they have committed, or are about to commit, a crime. Then again, it's all in how you word your probable cause on the forms and what your video shows.

People that abuse their power will eventually be caught, if only by Death.

Re:When I was in College.... (1)

karmatic (776420) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400526)

An officer has to have probable cause to initiate an investigation.

While this is _technically_ true, it's amazing how low that bar can be. I had the misfortune of dealing with the police not too long ago; I locked my door after leaving it (to keep them from barging in and claiming I consented to a search). They used that fact, and claimed that I was "evasive" and "refused to make eye contact" as the basis for obtaining a search warrant. The first statement is a gross mischaracterization; the second statement was patently false. Part of my job function is sales; I always make eye contact. I wasn't evasive, either - there was no need.

All that matters is that a judge determines probable cause was obtained, which is (of course) granted based largely on the officer's word. In some cases, this is necessary for law enforcement (officer smelled pot), as there isn't any direct evidence which can be gathered, and enforcement of the law requires belief of the officer. The downside to this is the potential for abuse by officers unconstrained by the truth. If they don't find anything, it's no skin off their back. If they do find something, you must have done enough to give them probable cause. The ends justify the means.

I do not mean to imply that _all_ cops are dishonest; rather, the potential for abuse is great, and the dishonest ones are far more noticable. The courts are supposed to serve the interest of justice, and keep officers honest - they don't always (and can't always) do so when the officer is willing to lie about the circumstances or the evidence.

Fortunatly, in my case, the cops were guilty of such gross malfeasance that I should prevail in court, even if it takes several appeals to do so. As an example, I had an officer pull out a knife, and tell me it was his "throwdown knife" - that if I got out of line, he could shoot me, and say I pulled the knife on him, making his shooting me self defense. There were a number of lies told by the arresting officer on the probable cause statement, as well as her reports (more than one officer was involved).

Re:When I was in College.... (1)

slashkitty (21637) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399528)

Well, the license plate checks are already getting much more automated.

I remember a few years ago in NYC seeing a guy in a car driving around typing in every single license plate # he could see. I'm sure it was just an insurance company thing to check for stolen/missing cars, but who knows how many things they check.

Of course, they have cameras that can read the plates now anyway, don't even need the guy. They can just mount a camera somewhere, or drive it around and map who and where everybody is.

Perhaps you got the government you deserve (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17399626)

I'm sure the SDS and SWP were defenders of the limited federal government and sovereignty of the individual enshrined in the constitution.

MOD PARENT UP (1)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17401142)

I lol'd at his comment.

For those who don't know

SDS = Students for a Democratic Society [about.com]

SWP = Socialist Workers Party [wikipedia.org]

Now you see why his limited federal government and individual freedom comment was funny.

Re:When I was in College.... (1)

dyslexicbunny (940925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400822)

Terrorism isn't even mentioned in the article. Is it unreasonable to have any cooperation at all among the police?

Other posters have mentioned that searches and the like will be tracked and recorded so it isn't just a free access system. Another mentioned about how it helps officers out when dealing with someone they just pulled over. I like their reasoning and would support it.

Provided you have a clean record from then to now, the incidents from thirty years down the road shouldn't matter. If you have just been released from prison, things would be different than if you were nabbed for B&E as a kid, did community service, and straightened up.

Obviously, I'm hoping that the police would show some sense here. Perhaps I might be somewhat idealistic since I haven't had a run-in with the law and am still young. But if managed properly with thorough oversight, I don't believe it would be a huge problem.

What is wrong with the Washington Post? (0, Flamebait)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398966)

Seriously, which side are they on? They side with criminals here and go against a system which would finally allow law enforcement to seamlessly share case files and information! Exactly what information is there in this system that law enforcement could not already get by calling up the various agencies and then having the file physically sent or driving 50+ miles to pick it up? The answer is nothing! All this system does is make information that was already available more accessible. That means bad news for crime rings and what does the Washington Post do? They play the privacy and civil liberties card. What a crock of shit! If ever there was a newspaper that needed to be boycotted it would be the Washington Post!

The problems, in a nutshell (1)

bagofbeans (567926) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399614)

1. The data can't be corrected by the 'suspect'
2. The data is subject to abuse, partly because it will be so easy to access. Many people can be cowed into opening up when the interrogator shows a little unexpected history on a person, because many people feel guilty about something. For example, "Does your wife know you surf porn channels?" would open up a lot of men...
3. Law enforcement tend to regard legitimate individual political protests as quasi-illegal, un-American activity, and so any personal protest activity monitored by FBI would count against you. It's only called lobbying if you are paid to do it.
4. The data will passed to companies and other countries, treated as accurate, and used against you. This is not a forecast; it's in the plan already. So you won't get that job because your potential boss thinks you are a Democrat...

Re:The problems, in a nutshell (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400424)

Please cite sources for any of this information. Specifically point 4!

Re:What is wrong with the Washington Post? (1)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399922)

It's been a while since I lived in the greater D.C. metropolitan area, but from what I can remember there are two major newspapers in D.C.:

Washington Post: Left-leaning, liberal

Washington Times: Right-leaning, conservative

Something tells me that if a similar story were to appear in the Washington Times, it would have a different slant and possible even tout the advantages of this crime database.

Forgiveness Factor? (3, Insightful)

End Program (963207) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398978)

While I applaud the effort to improve the efficiency of law enforcement, I am concerned about unintended consequences.

One advantage of the old system was a built in forgiveness factor. Someone who had a checked past could clean up their life and move forward in life. Any headaches dealing with the system bias and mistakes would eventually become less important over time as records were destroyed or lost.

Now, you will have one central database where every legal detail on your life could be contained. What happens to impulsive individuals to get in a little trouble when they young?

Will they have a record following them around the rest of their lives? I guess your high school teacher was right when they said, "This is going on your permanent record!"

Re:Forgiveness Factor? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399566)

I guess your high school teacher was right when they said, "This is going on your permanent record!"

      You're right. Maybe I shouldn't have stabbed her in the eye with the scissors...

Re:Forgiveness Factor? (1)

joebagodonuts (561066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400322)

What makes you think it an "unintended consequence"?

I'm sure there are principled folks who are thinking that this great big DB will help keep our society safe. I'm equally sure there are equally powerful, but not so principled, folks who want this to further their schemes of maintaining power.

The nature of Institutions is to maintain their power by any means. If some individuals are harmed in the course of the maintenance of power, well, too bad. Human history is replete with examples of individuals and groups being imprisoned, tortured, killed, etc. Just for the crime of opposing the status quo. Don't just think Germany in the 30's, go back to the Catholic Church (and Rome before that). Galileo was almost executed, not for being correct in his observations about celestial bodies, but for the "crime" of telling folks about them in a way that the church felt threatened by. I'm sure others can provide examples of abuse of power from any institution in any era.

Seems to me the government already has more power than I want it to have. In my mind, the inclusion of information on folks that aren't charged with a crime is too easy to abuse. And there is no doubt it will be abused. It's human nature.

WHEEEEE!! (3, Insightful)

rawtatoor (560209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398984)

Is everyone enjoying the ride down the slippery slope?

Re:WHEEEEE!! (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399266)

Is everyone enjoying the ride down the slippery slope?

      I love it. Especially because I don't live in the US. Look on the bright side, when we hit the bottom, there will be nowhere left to go but up again...

Sounds good, but... (1)

coleopterana (932651) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399004)

I've recently read a lot of articles about people being screwed in various ways because crimes they either didn't commit or crimes that were supposed to be expunged from their records were never correctly removed, and the errors are perpetuated in such databases that are lucky to be checked annually. People reported being denied promotions, jobs at all, being fired, not qualifying for loans or mortgages--the works. I think we should focus on some QA before we leap to what will surely become an error-ridden and ungainly system, let alone the security issues.

From Kafkaesque to Orwellian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17399162)

Give the feds the ability to fingerprint you just for being in custody (never charged) and we can get this database nice and fat real quick.

Just another outcome when we have so much support for federalism coming from the Republicans and Democrats.

Death to America! Long live the sham republic!

Law Enforcement Data Sharing (2, Informative)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399200)

I worked on a law enforcement data sharing effort in Ohio. Most police departments are islands of automation. They'll have a 911 system and usually an integrated departmental records management system. Often they will have separate access to a very limited state / federal system. Very rarely will they tie in with neighboring local agencies.

Traffic stops are are dangerous stressful moments for police officers. They don't know if they are stopping Joe Citizen, or someone who just committed armed robbery. If an individual is wanted in the next town, usually that information will not be available.

The Ohio system (OLLEISN) was meant to address this on an statewide basis and got off to a good start. Data is exchanged using an XML standard (Global Justice XML Data Model) developed at Georgia Tech for the DOJ. Content consists of adult criminal records and is tightly controlled.

If the DOJ follows this model for Federal data and does a good job of implementation - I see this as a very positive development.

You'd better not shout, ... (1)

Linnen (735667) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399250)

You'd better not cry,
You'd better not pout, I'm telling you why...

Santa Claus sold his naughty/nice database to the DOJ.

Re:You'd better not shout, ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17399698)

Dear Santa,

Please send me your list of bad girls.

Nothing to see here - move on! (1)

blanchae (965013) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399296)

Regardless if it is a good idea or not, it would mostly likely require laws to be passed in every state and municipal to allow the integration of the systems. Each system is essentially incapatible and then there would be the lobbying by the manufacturers to determine which system should be used and how to integrate. Then money would have to be made available to upgrade the existing systems to integrate into the national ones. The fighting over where this money is going to come from and who's going to pay will commence. After many decades of lawyers and SNAFU, nothing will happen except huge billion dollar bills to the taxpayers for a system that doesn't work.

We can see this process already ongoing with the integration of emergency communications systems which was identified as a problem and acted on in the early 90s where police, fire, ambulance, hospitals and the military communications systems failed because they are incompatible. A decade later, the same problem existed with hurricane Katrina. Where's the integration? - stuck in Washington bogged down in lobbying and lawyers: the Great American way!

Why "OneDOJ" instead of "One DOJ" (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399374)

What's up with the ridiculous use of Apple-like names? (E.g., "MacPaint," "iPOD," etc.) Is the DOJ now being run by 20-something*** year old people who think it's _essential_ to do this? ***They must be 20-somethings; an old fart like me would have used "Omni" instead of "One."

Re:Why "OneDOJ" instead of "One DOJ" (1)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400160)

Well I think its safe to say that people older than 20 something have used that style of naming convention. You already mentioned MacPaint which isn't shipped on modern Macs. Then we have NetBSD and FreeBSD. Its iPod which doesn't start with a capital letter.

In the case of the BSDs, I am 27 and those two projects were started before I owned my first PC. As for the Omni argument, my mother never would have thought of that. She would have called it something like Bad Guy Search or possibly Yahoo for criminals.

Re:Why "OneDOJ" instead of "One DOJ" (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400402)

Well, if Apple didn't start this naming convention with software such as: MacPaint, MacDraw, and etc., who did? For instance, was it originally "VisiCalc" or "Visicalc?"

C'mon, /.'ers, I really want to know: what was the first software product to take two words and make them into one, using mixed letter case?

Most folks assume this DB already exists. (1)

jrwilk01 (88081) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399384)

At least most folks that watch CSI and other crime programs. Isn't it cool how TV cops can search and cross-reference all crime databases instantly, from one user interface?

The real world isn't like that. Local law enforcement agencies don't talk to each other. People with arrest warrants go in and out of jail in other jurisdictions, and no one notices.

Security (2, Insightful)

aarenz (1009365) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399386)

If the DOJ can secure it so that only valid law enforcement users can access the system, it will be fine. I am sure that most of the data that is in the system is not admissable in court, so they would have to track down the real evidence and not be able to use invalid data that was put into a database of information. It may point the finger at someone, but they will not be convicted based on wrong information in a DOJ file.

Re:Security (1)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399842)

Like secure enough to prevent Microsoft from embedding their agents in the DOJ and overturning the antitrust suit?

Oh wait...

mandelbr0t

what will this be used for .. (1)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399476)

In this series Edward Woodward gets his 'Union' card confiscated (declared a non-citizen) and almost starves to death as he can't access any of the basic services necessary for survival.

[fiction]

"The population is now governed by the tyrannical Home Office Public Control Department (PCD), who have done away with the rights of the individual and maintain control through ID cards, rationing and electronic surveillance"

"the Great Britain .. we see portrayed in this series .. depicts a distinct "ruling class" and an "under-class" consisting mostly of "non-citizens" as they are called. It is virtually impossible to do anything "anonymously", and society is, to all intents and purposes cashless .. Transactional anonymity is only possible if one is able to pay with gold .. Not surprisingly, something of a black market and underground movement develops"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075469/ [imdb.com]

[reality]

Right now if in some officials opinion you may have had knowlege of the comissioning of a crime or supplied a service that aided in the commision of a crime, you can have your passport confiscated, be prevented travel to other regions of the UK and banned from using financial services - all without the bother of a trial, in other words declared a non-citizen.

Re:what will this be used for .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17399530)

you can have your passport confiscated, be prevented travel to other regions of the UK and banned from using financial services

      Good thing I have 3 passports... oops?

Torrent (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399562)

URL? :)

Oversight? (1)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 7 years ago | (#17399980)

Who's watching the watchers in this case? Does this fall under some sort of bureaucrat-stuffed intelligence oversight committee on Capitol Hill?

Some Concerns and Questions (5, Insightful)

martyb (196687) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400044)

Sigh. I don't know where to begin.

First off, I understand there is some not insignificant value to this idea. The concept of making it easier for law enforcement to gather already available information on a suspect is quite laudable. It bothers me when I hear of how a suspect in a "major investigation" was actually picked up on an unrelated offense, and let go, because the arresting officers were unaware of the other outstandings on the person. It would be nice if we could stop this from happening. In fact, I'm sure many lives could be saved. If I had a loved one who was murdered, and then found out that law enforcement had actually captured the suspect beforehand, AND LET HIM GO, you can bet I'd be outraged. But is this proposal the right way to go about it? What is the REAL COST to you and to me. Not just in dollars and cents, but also in our freedoms as citizens.

My concern is more with the implications and implementations of this concept, and how easily it can be abused.

Data Quality: People have been known to not give their correct name to the police. Some people have used multiple names (aliases, AKA, etc.) Further, given that even touch-typists will occasionally make typographical errors (and not everyone is a touch-typist, either), I can forsee a not-insignificant amount of "bad" data finding its way into the system. Someone with a name similar to mine commits an offense, but gets recorded UNDER MY NAME. See: false-positives (Type I error) and flase-negatives (Type II error) here: Type I and type II errors [wikipedia.org] .

  • They may not find this person when they go looking for his info - because it's NOT under his name.
  • They might find this person's offense(s) should they go looking under my name - say, for a minor traffic offense.

Feed the Database: If it's so benign, I want to see a requirement that they seed the database with information on EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL AND STATE OFFICIAL. President of the USA, every senator, representative, judge, police officer, sheriff, District Attorney, etc. If your wage is paid by our taxes, then your info gets loaded into their system automatically. If there is an uproar about doing this for THEM, then maybe they should not be doing it to US. Got to stamp out any possible corruption, yanno? Besides, if you have done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide. Right?

Log EVERY access: CRUD - Create, Read, Update, Delete. Storage is cheap. Log EVERY SINGLE time the data is accessed complete with the date, time, source IP, accessor's name (See the Feed the Database, above, what was requested, etc. If what you are doing with the database is on the up-and-up, then you have nothing to hide. Log it.

Prosecute Abuse of the System: Run analyses every single day to seek out abuse of the system. And Prosecute Them. Publicize The Prosecutions. Enter the prosecutions into the system. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Data Validation and Correction: It's going to happen. Some data is going to be inaccurate. (Consider the problems that exist with the accuracy of people's credit reports. And the difficulties, effort, and cost involved in getting those mistakes rectified.) How can I:

  1. Get access to the information they have on me?
  2. Contest its accuracy?
  3. Ensure corrections are applied?

Looking ahead: Data storage costs are coming down. Some localities have ever-present video cameras recording all activity in their purview. I can imagine a time when advanced techniques exist to go searching through these archives looking for, extracting, and logging the identities and activities of all within their field of view (face recognition, scene analyses, cell phone GPS, etc.) Combine all these streams and extracts into a central DB and one can easily go trolling for perps.

So, in short, I can see some good intentions behind this. Quite laudable in fact. But, I am NOT convinced this is a good idea, never mind whether or not they can come up with a good implementation.

Far more insidious... (3, Informative)

gwayne (306174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400294)

is the ability for a system like this to create new classes of crimes and criminals out of normal law-abiding people. Just think--DA's around the country are always looking to increase their conviction rates, so they start mining data and looking for trends. The next thing you know, there are new laws on the books restricting freedoms, including

  • petty vices
  • how you dress (think hijab)
  • where you shop
  • what you wrote in your blog
  • what you think
  • who you associate with professionally and personally
  • who you voted for last election

Each of these areas has been encroached upon by our new Socialist-Bush government.

I for one, DO NOT welcome our new socialist overlords!

Re:Far more insidious... (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17400710)

"...Socialist-Bush government."

Socialist? Don't you mean right-wing and bordering on fascist? There is very little about this republican administration that is close socialism, unless you consider democracy socialism. If that's the case then what is it, besides the obvious privacy concerns, that you are arguing for/against?

Re:Far more insidious... (1)

justasecond (789358) | more than 7 years ago | (#17401176)

Let's see...which side of the aisle would you associate with a government that has had the biggest increase in domestic spending since Johnson, massive new social programs, huge increase in regulatory power over private business, gigantic deficit spending, etc.? As much as you might hate Bush, you need to admit to your self that his actions (bar the idiotic praying-in-public-schools, ban abortion nonsense) have all the hallmarks of left-winger politics.

Throw in the stifling of free speech (a fav. of all left-wing types from PC campus nazis to Stalin, Pol Pot, Noriega, Mao, Kim, etc.) and you've got a good candidate for a socialist's Man of the Year award.

You just call him "fascist" because by calling him a socialist you're peeing in your own pool.

My Big Brother is a Police Officer (1)

Thomas the Doubter (1016806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17401038)

My brother is a police officer, and I am pretty sure that he can get me the information I need to know about my rivals at work. There is this one guy whom I would love to get the goods on. Let's see, maybe if my brother won't get me the info, maybe one of our friends on the force - maybe if I give him that 1973 Dodge Dart in my garage that he has always wanted. Or my other friend who will probably just want cash.
Thomas
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?