Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security Government News

National "Dragnet" Connecting at State, Local Level 94

Posted by Soulskill
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

National "Dragnet" Connecting at State, Local Level

Comments Filter:
  • by techno-vampire (666512) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:16AM (#22672934) Homepage
    When I saw the title, my first thought was that the article was about the old Dragnet TV show and Sgt. Joe Friday. I must admit that I was very disappointed to find out I was wrong.
  • That's cool (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Knuckles (8964) <knuckles AT dantian DOT org> on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:17AM (#22672938)
    If we're lucky, in a few years Congress will impose limits on domestic intelligence activity after revelations that the FBI, Army, local police and others will have misused their authority for years to build troves of personal dossiers and monitor political activists and other law-abiding Americans.
    • Re:That's cool (Score:4, Insightful)

      by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:22AM (#22672952) Homepage Journal
      Well, so long as they use the information for covert purposes nothing will be done.. it's only when they use it to mount a coup that something will finally be done about it, and by then it may well be too late.

      • it's only when they use it to mount a coup that something will finally be done about it
        Now it appears I'm the one who needs more sleep, since I read that as "mount a cop".

        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)

        by dietdew7 (1171613)
        This is the government, they don't need to mount a coup. They already run things.
        • by innerweb (721995)

          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)

      by siddesu (698447) on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:11AM (#22673114)
      And if you're unlucky, you may for a few years see fast crackdowns on all challengers of the political establishment for various minor and unimportant crimes (which will later conveniently preclude them from running for public office), until the day you stop seeing a lot of unapproved challengers to the political establishment.

      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.
      • Re:That's cool (Score:5, Interesting)

        by rock_climbing_guy (630276) on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:38AM (#22673198) Journal
        Well, there are allegations that top government officials have been illegally using the secret dossiers that it already has [wikipedia.org].
        • I know, every time I hear about how much more experienced Clinton is compared to Obama, I think "they say that like it's a good thing". In hindsight the Nixon wasn't really as bad as the Clintons.
      • Of course, I don't think that scenario is particularly likely in the US.

        We are only one (false flag op) mushroom cloud away from that.

        How about using that information to exclude dissidents from jury service BEFORE the summonses are mailed? It would save on mailing costs. The time taken for voir dire would practically vanish. This way only rubberstampers get to serve. When a dissident goes to vote and there are electronic voting machines (which will be mandated eventually), the unit goes through the motions, but the machine discards his/her vote, a la Stalin on silicon. How abo

      • And if you're unlucky, you may for a few years see fast crackdowns on all challengers of the political establishment for various minor and unimportant crimes (which will later conveniently preclude them from running for public office), until the day you stop seeing a lot of unapproved challengers to the political establishment.

        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
    • by Tikkun (992269)
      Why would we want to limit the actions of the fatherland's patriotic heroes? You must be a collaborator with the enemy. ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:20AM (#22672946)
    Sits a 1U server on a rack, it's processor fan whirring away. The LEDs' blink in the dark. On the server's harddrive sits thousands of files. One of those files is listed with a unique social security number, my social security number. In that file is my history, my financial records, my political record...my life. It is a dossier on me. This server room is located in the bottom basement of some old office building, in some city somewhere's in the USA.


    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?

    • by mi (197448)

      I have no criminal record. My only crime is to criticize the government's more egregious policies.

      It is not a crime, and most Americans have done this. Yours is not even a persecution mania, but simply that of greateness.

    • You'd be lucky if it was only on one hard drive. Likely it is redundantly fragmented across the RAID implementation on a cabinet-sized storage array, which is then replicated to one or more backup sites on a live basis.

      No, your document is not safe from access. Any storage admin who has access to the storage array and SAN has access to your file. In a mix-up with LUNs, your file can be accidentally assigned to the wrong server(s) and circulated from there. There is also little to no chance encryption was us
  • A helpful guideline: (Score:5, Informative)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:22AM (#22672956) Journal
    I'm going to quote an old post [slashdot.org] from the "DMCA Abuse Widespread" [slashdot.org] article:

    Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
    • by ILuvRamen (1026668) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:45AM (#22673028)
      that's not how it works. Rarely does some evil poltiical overlord try and make some BS law as a false front to do something shady. That's just in the movies. What usually happens is the person has good intentions and then someone later abuses it. That or someone hacks their system and steals all the information. Rarely do we ever see a "the government collected embarrassing info on me and put it on their myspace page for the world to see" like all the paranoid people fear, but boy do we hear the stories about way overly detailed and unnecessary databases getting hacked and all the data stolen!
      • by poetmatt (793785) on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:23AM (#22673154) Journal
        Really? What part of the PRO IP act as a recent example? Or how about this "no swear word" ordinance in a California town [usatoday.com]? You'd call good intentions directly stifling the first amendment? You don't think this was the goal straight from the start, that now it has to be challenged to be proven wrong?
        • Mr. Gotta have his way. No, I don't live there. I just don't like liars.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tacocat (527354)

          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)

            by penix1 (722987)

            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.

            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).

            .. using the historical reasons for breaking up the FBI, Army, Police is a good starting po

          • by h4rm0ny (722443) on Friday March 07, 2008 @09:47AM (#22674424) Journal

            "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.

          • He's just some mother fucker coming in here with his mother fucking ideas, shitting all over the first amendment. What a fucking pussy cock bitch. Fuck! (Sorry dude, I couldn't resist ;)

            To paraphrase what someone or another said sometime: "My right to offend you is more important than your wish not to be offended."
          • by AMuse (121806)
            I'm not sure who the quote is from, but it goes: "If you can't say fuck, then you can't say fuck the government!".
      • Enabling Act?

        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.
      • by soren100 (63191) on Friday March 07, 2008 @12:39PM (#22676464)

        that's not how it works. Rarely does some evil poltiical overlord try and make some BS law as a false front to do something shady. That's just in the movies.
        You mean you think that "bad guys" never seek political power? The founders of our country would have said that this was an incredibly naive viewpoint, since the "evil political overlords" were exactly the kind of people they expected to take power, make "BS laws" and do "something shady". Which is why they wrote the Constitution expressly to try to prevent that from happening.

        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.
    • by Ihlosi (895663) on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:47AM (#22673226)
      'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying . They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.



      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.

      • by riondluz (726831)
        fortunately for us all, our government, for all its resources and powers, have proven itself repeatedly to be incompetent both in using what it has and in its efforts to keep it secret.
  • wait for injustice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ndnspongebob (942859) on Friday March 07, 2008 @03:24AM (#22672966)
    Now that the all the agencies are against the citizens, who will protect us from the government? and when will they realize they have gone too far? for sure, injustice will come before change
  • The problem is... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by budword (680846) on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:28AM (#22673168)
    The problem is that a cop investigating an ordinary crime has to sift through a very small haystack before he starts seeing some needles. With "National Security" "surveillance" they are mostly trolling ordinary people. Once they get this information on "us", they not only tend to keep it, but the powers that be almost always end up using it for their own purposes. Nixon and Hoover weren't weird aberrations (Despite the fact both were individually weird aberrations.) in American history, they are everywhere, among those who seek power in Government jobs.
  • by hyades1 (1149581) <hyades1@hotmail.com> on Friday March 07, 2008 @04:33AM (#22673184)

    ... if the government is allowed to get away with this, the terrorists have won.

    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.

    • 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?

      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
      • by hyades1 (1149581)

        Sorry, I don't buy it. In my experience, the greatest impediment to effective policing isn't the tools they have available, it's laziness, stupidity and territoriality. I'll be the first to tell you there's incredibly good cops...I know several. But a lot of police would rather see a law enacted that utterly destroyed one of your rights than spend 15 minutes getting exactly the same results "the hard way".

        And as for "having my cake and eating it too, you've really, really got it wrong if you think I v

        • Sorry, I don't buy it. In my experience, the greatest impediment to effective policing isn't the tools they have available, it's laziness, stupidity and territoriality. I'll be the first to tell you there's incredibly good cops...I know several. But a lot of police would rather see a law enacted that utterly destroyed one of your rights than spend 15 minutes getting exactly the same results "the hard way".

          Agreed that these are impediments to progress. Policemen are people too. And territoriality is a HUGE impediment to progress. But there are things that just cannot be thoroughly done via a couple old-fashioned phone calls. The world is just too big.

          And as for "having my cake and eating it too, you've really, really got it wrong if you think I value safety above freedom.

          I'm not ascribing any values to you personally (I don't know you). But I am responding to the part of your original post which complained that those "dipshits" can't locate illegal aliens and heard about the Berlin wall on the news. If you're choosing to cut th

          • by hyades1 (1149581)
            I REALLY wish I had time to do this in detail. Here's a couple of quick points. 1. I'm calling the various security agencies dipshits because if they can't use the tools they already have and the billions of dollars we already give them every year to find 10 million missing lawbreakers or to notice that the Berlin Wall is coming down before the rest of us see it on TV, then nothing else we give them is likely to improve their performance all that much. If you think the powers these agencies already poss
    • 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.

      Russia falls to Lenin. The Third Republic to Hitler. China to Mao.

      In the nineteeth century, how many enfeebled regimes in Asia and Africa fell without a whimper to the imperalist European?

      In the twentieth, to the bandit, the warlord, the tinpot dictator of the banana republic? [wikipedia.org]

  • I, for one, welcome our new Dragnet overlords.

    Why Sergeant Friday! So nice to see you!

    On another note, coming soon to a government office near you:
    "Ladies and gentlemen: the story you are about to hear is true. Only the names have NOT been changed to protect the innocent."
  • SMRT (Score:3, Funny)

    by kidsizedcoffin (1197209) on Friday March 07, 2008 @05:13AM (#22673322)
    FTA: "Some officials avoid using the term intelligence because of those sensitivities." Well that certainly is a relief.
  • by leereyno (32197) on Friday March 07, 2008 @06:04AM (#22673474) Homepage Journal
    The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    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)

      by colonslash (544210)

      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]

      • by neomunk (913773)
        "They've got us by the balls, what can we do?"

        "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)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Friday March 07, 2008 @07:51AM (#22673820) Homepage

    Whole new layers of self-important morons sticking their nose in your business in the name of national security.

  • Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff that matters. All we know are the facts, ma'am.
  • Heh... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Oxy the moron (770724) on Friday March 07, 2008 @08:40AM (#22674018)

    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.

  • This level of interoperability has always existed.

    National Crime Info Center [wikipedia.org]

    I think they even got stuff with interpol.

    J Edgar Hoover started it.
    • NCIC doesn't track much more than a national list of stolen vehicles and outstanding warrants. It's a service the FBI runs and makes available to local police departments.
  • SCMODS (Score:2, Funny)

    by joeslugg (8092)
    Elwood: "I'll bet they've got SCMODS."

    Jake: "SCMODS?"

    Elwood:
    "State.
      County.
      Municipal.
      Offender.
      Data.
      System."
  • by Phoenix666 (184391) on Friday March 07, 2008 @11:12AM (#22675350)
    This /. article follows closely on the heels of the reports that the FBI has continued to abuse the National Security Letters, despite being caught the first time about 5 years ago. (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Senate-FBI.html?ex=1362373200&en=64cbc1e08db5f5bf&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

    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)

    by lexbaby (88257)
    This is nothing new. N-Dex is simply replacing NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System) with the new NIEM (National Information Exchange Model) XML standard. Take off the tin foil hats everyone.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by castoridae (453809)
      Finally! Somebody mod parent up please. I know this is /. but the nerd-FUD is getting out of hand on this one!

      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...
    • by foofooboy (541081)
      It's NIBRS with names, narratives, IDs (SSN, DL, etc..) it is everything you can find on an incident report.
  • Not too scared... (Score:4, Informative)

    by kabocox (199019) on Friday March 07, 2008 @01:03PM (#22676862)
    What the heck is N-Dex?
    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.

  • By increasing the paranoia in the U.S., and inviting even more partisan usage of this type of "intelligence sharing" for political gains, this will engender an even more crass, selfish and base society in the U.S. Things are already heading in that direction.

    Research has discovered, as if common sense weren't enough, that "free" societies that are governed by transparency and the rule of law have much more cooperation in regards to helping others and the common good.
    See http://www.physorg.com/news1240 [physorg.com]
  • Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.
  • So... Raytheon's latest products include a death ray and a system for organizing your spy data? Methinks the real world Pentex I spy, else maybe a New World Order?

    To those who aren't huge roleplaying dorks, I apologize for the inconvenience.

  • Why is it that some countries have had laws dealing with this for the last frigging 30 years [wikipedia.org] while others still can't put 2 and 2 together ?!? Basically it says that government agencies can collect whatever they want, but they are forbidden to merge their files/databases with other agencies. If you have a _social security_ number (= medical record), it can't be matched to your identity card number. And can't be matched to your tax account. And can't be matched to your bank account. Or you driver's license.
  • You know, I've always wanted to know how in the hell a nation could allow something like the KGB to form. Now I still don't know, 'cause the spying-on-your-own-citizens has never been so thorough. Maybe China comes close, or even the Netherlands, but information systems like this...?
  • N-Dex is no where near being complete. I have talked to the guys running the project and it isn't even scheduled to be complete for another 8 years. It isn't going to collect anything that isn't publicly available already through a freedom of information request at your local Law Enforcement agency. It is not an intelligence system, it is a historical records system with names and locations attached. Don't be scared, just don't get your name on an incident report, and you won't have an issue.

    There are o

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...