Slashdot Log In
National "Dragnet" Connecting at State, Local Level
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Mar 07, 2008 02:11 AM
from the story-you-are-about-to-hear-is-true dept.
from the story-you-are-about-to-hear-is-true dept.
Squirtle tips us to a Washington Post story about the progress and expansion of N-DEx - the National Data Exchange. Developed by Raytheon for a mere $85 million, N-DEx is hailed as a unified intelligence sharing system, which will allow agencies to share and analyze data from all levels of law enforcement. From the Post:
"Three decades ago, Congress imposed limits on domestic intelligence activity after revelations that the FBI, Army, local police and others had misused their authority for years to build troves of personal dossiers and monitor political activists and other law-abiding Americans. Since those reforms, police and federal authorities have observed a wall between law enforcement information-gathering, relating to crimes and prosecutions, and more open-ended intelligence that relates to national security and counterterrorism. That wall is fast eroding following the passage of laws expanding surveillance authorities, the push for information-sharing networks, and the expectation that local and state police will play larger roles as national security sentinels."
Related Stories
Submission: U.S. Enforcement agencies unite with NDeX by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
First thought. (Score:5, Funny)
Whereas I (Score:4, Funny)
Should I get more sleep?
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's cool (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's cool (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Then I thought to myself, does he mean "mount" as in shag, or "mount" as in stuffed and hung on the wall of the cabin?
And then I realized my coffee is ready, and all became clear to me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the government, they don't need to mount a coup. They already run things.
They already have, we just missed it. Very clever of them to have gotten rid of the "by the people for the people problem" they were facing.
InnerWeb
Re:That's cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Then one day you may be asked to cooperate for an investigation of your neghbour, or to close down your blog, or something, and when you decline, someone may produce your file and say "see, there are these records about you here, your case hasn't quite made it to court but it will if you don't help, and since there's three of them, by statute no. 22, you get a very long sentence". So, you'll have the choice to cooperate or else. For many people that may be enough pressure.
Of course, I don't think that scenario is particularly likely in the US. Still, it seems the potential of harm from a comprehensive dossier the government has on people is enough to not let them have it, or at least have it cheaply.
Parent
Re:That's cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Unapproved challengers (Score:2)
I always assumed this was the reason for the HIPAA rule that allows law enforcement and intelligence agencies to access anyone's health records (and which AFAIK has not been challenge
Re: (Score:2)
In Some Back Server Room (Score:3, Insightful)
I have no criminal record. My only crime is to criticize the government's more egregious policies. And is the above document safe from access? Who has the key to it?
Re: (Score:2)
It is not a crime, and most Americans have done this. Yours is not even a persecution mania, but simply that of greateness.
A helpful guideline: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A helpful guideline: (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A helpful guideline: (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I might lose mod points on this, but can you please explain how swearing and freedom of speech are tied together. I don't think they are limiting what opinions you are permitted to express, rather that you chose a more civil tongue to do it in.
And to accuse someone of a subversive or alternative purpose will generally result in you losing the argument because you come off sounding like an immature paranoid. Rather, it's more valuable to raise sufficient awareness that people consider the protection again
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on your definition of "swear words". To use a George Carlin line, "You have bad intentions, bad emotions, and words." (in reference to the words you can't say on TV).
Re:A helpful guideline: (Score:4, Insightful)
"Obscene" language is a class thing. People from working class backgrounds frequently use such language - and why shouldn't I talk the way my parents brought me up talking? Whilst people from middle class backgrounds perceive certain words to be inherently offensive. This perception is never stated to be, but originates from, the belief that such language is of the lower classes.
You ask why choice of words is necessarily part of freedom of speech, but the censorship of "obscene" language is merely the repression of the language of one part of society by another part of society. Your term of "civil speech" shows you come from or have adopted a particular cultural viewpoint but this is not necessarily universal. This linguistic division in society along class backgrounds is real and to demand that someone adopt a different subset of language in order to put forward their views is to demand that they renounce their own culture in favour of the one with more power (to some extent). It is not acceptable to proscribe words on behalf of others. I have every right to talk in the language I am familiar with, rather than adopt some other group's mode of expression.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the current reality, but even The Supreme Court can be wrong in interpreting the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Whether or not they are wrong is irrelevant. The Supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights applies to state laws, whether you like it or not. And the states can't have laws that the Supreme Court has found to be unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I hate to point this out, but most State Constitutions mirror the Federal Constitution.
So, have you read the California Constitution? Really read it?
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RI
I guess you never heard of the (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 [wikipedia.org]
And no, it was not the only time in history similiar measures were done, just the most famous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment [guardian.co.uk]
And now, I'm not saying it happened here or is happening here, but there are alarming paralells. You may be right, GWB has good intentions (such as they are) but it will be abused later.
It is not just in the movies -- it's here. (Score:4, Insightful)
You really think that even though "evil political overlords" can and did take power in Germany, Russia, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Uganda, Rwanda, etc. etc, and delight in every kind of abuse possible in those places, that somehow those same "evil overlord" types are prevented from doing this in America?
What's really amazing is that the current rulers of the U.S. have publicly admitted torturing their victims and holding them without trial. They have also publicly admitted to mounting a massive campaign of unrestricted domestic surveillance, and entering into illegal partnerships with corporations to do it. Yet somehow you still think it "can't happen here" and even get modded "insightful" for it.
That attitude of "it can never happen here" is precisely why it is happening here.
Parent
It's even more insidious than that: (Score:4, Insightful)
Reality is even more insidious than that. They may not even be lying, but be completely honest and never use the law "that way" - but their successors eventually will.
It's just the same with agreements in a contract. Even if the original party will not abuse the terms, their successors will.
Parent
wait for injustice (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be cliche, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's extremely difficult to take over a country where everything is decentralized and/or chaotic. You might inflict damage on one spot, but all the others just keep cooking along. US problems in Iraq are a good example of this.
Conversely, a society where every detail of every citizen's life is available in a centralized database (which is conveniently located in the same place as a strong central government) virtually begs to be taken over. You have only to take over the brain, and the rest of the body politic just keeps obliviously going about its business. The only difference is that there's a new boss raking in the profits.
And to all those jackasses who like to say, "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of", I'd simply ask in return, "Are you really stupid enough to believe the information a government collects on you is always accurate?"
These dipshits can't locate 10 million illegal aliens, and they found out the Berlin Wall was coming down on the evening news. But you trust them to notice you're not the same guy as the one with a similar name and SIN who likes to rob banks half way across the country?
If somebody doesn't put some reins on these bastards right quick, we're going to find out there's worse things than losing a city or two to terrorist action.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't have your cake and eat it too! If you want them to be able to work effectively to protect you, you have to allow them to do their jobs efficiently with modern tools. Despite some of the Coplink marketing in TFA, the nDex system is a
SMRT (Score:3, Funny)
The tree of liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing worse than criminals are rogue agents of the state, acting under color of authority, to undermine the rights of their fellow citizens.
Thugs and goons are bad enough, but they're 10 times worse when given a badge.
A good friend of mine once said: Most cops are NOT pigs, but an awful lot of pigs pursue a career in law enforcement. The older I get, the more I understand just how right he was.
At the end of the day, the only thing that stands between us and the would-be tyrants of the world is our willingness to oppose them, with deadly force if need be. Liberty and power are two sides of the same coin, and in the real world political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At the end of the day, the only thing that stands between us and the would-be tyrants of the world is our willingness to oppose them, with deadly force if need be. Liberty and power are two sides of the same coin, and in the real world political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
Good luck with that deadly force thing.
The Iraqi and Afghanistan wars (I use the term loosely) have cost around $3,000,0000,0000,000.00 [timesonline.co.uk] so far. How can you take up arms against a government which is willing to use those types of resources? I believe the ratio of dead Iraqi/American in this conflict is on the order of 100/1 (it is much less with documented numbers http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ [iraqbodycount.org] http://www.google.com/search?q=dead+iraqi+count&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:off [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"The only VIABLE option is to bitch and whine some more."
Yes, that very much sounds like something one would expect to hear on the internet, where people think whining and moaning about something actually HELPS! It doesn't.
And the VERY LEAST you need bodies in the streets non-violently INTERRUPTING BUSINESS AS USUAL (if you don't interrupt the flow of money, you'll not accomplish a thing) on weekdays in major cities. Anything less will be blown off as if it's,
Oh, this is good (Score:3, Insightful)
Whole new layers of self-important morons sticking their nose in your business in the name of national security.
Slashdot (Score:2)
Heh... (Score:5, Informative)
I've actually worked (albeit very briefly) on Indiana's part of this system, iDex. At my previous job, I worked on a police department records management system, and we had to write code to "plug in" to this National database. The odd thing about this is that we had to write our software to work in 4 different states (IL, IN, NY, SC) and each state (of course) does their data collection differently. So I'm not sure the database will be entirely useful, as some states will contribute one thing to one data field and some states will contribute something entirely different.
However, the scary part is, even if you call in to *report* a crime, your name goes into the system. I know this because our software kept track of every individual (criminal or otherwise) that was entered into it, and, to my knowledge, all data from the system was passed on to the iDex application.
Since when? (Score:2)
National Crime Info Center [wikipedia.org]
I think they even got stuff with interpol.
J Edgar Hoover started it.
Re: (Score:2)
SCMODS (Score:2, Funny)
Jake: "SCMODS?"
Elwood:
"State.
County.
Municipal.
Offender.
Data.
System."
Won't be abused? Think National Security Letters (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider that the national security letter abuse and data dragnet are concurrent with illegal government wiretaps and recent concerns about DNA profiling (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/health/24dna.html).
Observe, also, that Congress, no matter which party holds the majority there, is clearly uninterested in checking the excesses of the executive branch that oversees the FBI/CIA/NSA/Homeland Security. And it's not a partisan issue, since Bill Clinton began some of the steps that Bush has expanded on, and which either Hillary or McCain would continue.
I submit, fellow citizens, that we are quickly approaching a crisis in our democracy, when we each shall have to decide how important our freedom is to us, and what we're going to do about it.
It's Just NIBRS (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting that all the FUD comments come at 3am after this article was posted, and all the "voices of reason" come during daylight hours. Just saying...
Not too scared... (Score:4, Informative)
N-DEx: Law Enforcement National Data Exchange
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ndex/ndex_home.htm [fbi.gov]
I've actually heard this term around vendors once or twice. It's on the horizon, but not being sold at the moment. Heck, we'd be happy to get out of Uniform Crime Reports and into National Incident-Based Reporting System. Trust me. Its not the cops or the police agencies that want those things. They like to keep their data in their black box and share it with no one. It's the various folks at the federal/state level and the newspaper people that like to compare how your police department is doing with the neighbors that drives this. NIBRS is all about crime stats so that those that like to compare crime stats have more columns of information to compare.
There was a program called RPIS that died still born that was one of the precursors to this. It was mainly aimed at drug task forces to share intel data. It never really went anywhere. No one at our agency every entered anything into the system.
I've heard N-Dex in connection with NIBRs. The way its talked about is using those crime stats and sort of generating a "weather map" of crime stats or at least trying to predict future crimes based on current crime trends at more than just the local level. I think that sounds really cool in theory. I have serious doubts that they'll get and keep it up though. This sounds like something the feds will work on for a few years and will die off in 5 or so years. I'll wait until vendors start pushing N-Dex as a selling point or the state suddenly requiring it before I'm interested in it for our agency.
James Madison quote time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)