FBI will tap into personal profiles

San Diego Union Tribune ^ | 8/03/2002 | Bruce V. Bigelow

[CDHart]

Back in 1963 I worked for the local credit bureau in a midsize New England city. When the FBI wanted info, they'd come by and show their badges and they could get the whole file on anyone. Of course, it wasn't computerized at that time, but still there was a great deal of information available on people.

Carolyn

[WindMinstrel]

there's a big difference between that (with which I have no problem) and what they're proposing: hunting through data for people who might meet a specific profile. That puts us at risk of an investigation because we subscribe to certain magazines, or buy certain products, or spend cash instead of using credit cards. Things like that -- that are essentially an unwarranted investigation into the lives of private citizens -- is what has me nervous.


If they suspect someone, then they should have access to whatever information they need. However, they shouldn't go searching through the universe of data out there, hoping to find someone to suspect.

[Billy_bob_bob]

Presented as a public service.
(Done in reggae style)

Hey everybody, gather 'round. It's the privacy song!

"Well I don't have no privacy, neither do you.
The government is watching us, and Wal-Mart's watching too.
Your doctor keeps your urine for to clone your DNA.
Those albums that you bought last night, well now they know your'e gay.
The Interpol has got a file on you, so does the FBI.
McDonald's scans your face and there's a chip in your french fry.
You're scanned, recorded, sold and sorted to a database in the sky.
So whatever you do, when they're talking to you,
For God's sakes, LIE!
Lie, lie, lie lie lie.
Lie about your income, your age, gender and race.
Spell your name incorrectly, so it's harder to trace.
We can beat them back with bullsh!t, we can rub it in their face.
We can stick a big ol' monkey wrench right up their data base.
Lie lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie.
You see now Wal-Mart thinks I'm a seventy-five year old pensioner.
And Sony thinks I'm a single mother of ten.
The airline company thinks I make make seven hundred grand a year.
And Visa thinks I'm an Iniuit woman named "Ben".
Lie lie lie lie, lie lie lie lie.
You can lie to the man, you can lie right through your tooth.
They can take away our privacy but they can't have the truth.
Lie about your favorite drink, your viewing habits and the color of your sink.
Make up a phone number, make up a postal code,
if we all lie together the computer might explode!
So lie, lie lie. Lie lie lie lie lie.

Some come on everybody, let's beat those privacy invading bastards. Let's beat them with disinformation and organized chaos. Let's crash that computer, lets skew those statistics! Because let's face it, there's only one magical person who knows all our secrets.

And if Santa ever does sell his database, we're all screwed."

"The Privacy song" by Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie. Found on MP3.com. Presented as a public service by Billy_bob_bob.

[Hostage]

Thank you. I have seen that website before. The comments there are general. The real danger is the evolution towards more and more subservient behavior.

Case in point (true story): A person with perfect credit applies for a mortgage in 2002. Here, perfect credit means all loans are current, all credit cards have zero balances, no bankruptcies and so on.

A credit report shows a parking ticket from 1994 against an automobile owned by the mortgage applicant. The auto was purchased by the applicant in 1996. The banker evaluating the mortgage application notes the parking ticket and approves the loan contingent on the parking ticket being paid off.

The applicant refuses to pay the parking ticket. The bank evaluating the applicant sees otherwise perfect credit in addition to a large savings balance. The bank removes the parking ticket condition and approves the loan.

Still the threat is there that any individual, business or government can enter derogatory information on anyone in a variety of databases.

I am personally not against a bank accessing all and any information that is necessary to minimize risk. However, the access should have permission of the applicant. The applicant must be aware beforehand what information is to be disclosed. In other words, access must be controlled by the person whose information is requested. Transfer of information must likewise have the permission of the person whose information is to be transferred. Each person with the exception of convicted felons should "own" their personal information.

Personal information includes:

SSN
addresses
telephone numbers
account numbers
credit card numbers
past lawsuits and judgements
vehicle driving records
medical records
past divorces
family members
business partnerships
board memberships
employer records
Personal IRS returns
tenant records
personal assets
insurance histories
annuity accounts
purchases

Others can think of more items to define personal information. Such information will always have some exposure. The key point is that such information be restricted from massive public databases.

The SSN ties all this information together. Name, SSN, DOB opens all the databases to virtually anyone. Personal IRS returns are accessible for bribe through legislators. Still the SSN is necessary. It facilitates the dissemination of personal information to anyone with a computer. Someone far away, say in Pakistan, can get a complete dossier on any American with simple point and click actions. Worse yet, a demented neighbor or rabid lawyer can profile their targets easily.

Ownership of personal information will never be obtained unless it is declared against the law for anyone to access it without permission from the "owner".

As Americans we always wait until disaster strikes before taking action. The recent new access powers given to the government will lead to personal disasters. When there are enough Americans feeling "naked", the new powers will be curtailed. The cycle will repeat itself.

[Glenn]

When there are enough Americans feeling "naked", the new powers will be curtailed.

Your analysis was real good to that sentence. The powers will never be "curtailed". The government never gives power back unless forced to. That's an absolute. And these days, the lobbyists trump the five people you might get together to protest such a thing. It's not about puppies or seal fur, afterall.

[Hostage]

Yes I am aware that often it requires force.

As a young man, I saw 700,000 people protesting the Vietnam War on the mall in Washington D.C.

There was some rioting, many arrests. There was some violence, throwing of bottles, trash cans into the street and so on.

There were some symbolic gestures that went much futher than violence such as throwing of silver star medals by veteran soldiers.

It took an outraged nation to make a difference.

It did not take very much money. People from all over the country got into their vans and buses and headed for the Mall where many of them camped out.

And they kept coming, again and again.

But it took several years.

Finally the political leadership in Washington changed their positions.

And Gerald Ford abandoned the War.

The war on privacy will be folded in with other issues of repressed Americans: repressive taxes, lack of due process, fourth amendment violations and so on.

But these issues are too obfuscatory to grab and internalize in comparison to the primitive horror of war savagery.

What it may take is an economic cataclysm.

But there may be an alternative in "a good idea" that may be used easily in a civil disobedience setting.

[Glenn]

As a young man, I saw 700,000 people protesting the Vietnam War on the mall in Washington D.C.

And what have you seen since then? Mere pockets of discontent. That's all. And it will continue to be so.

[Hostage]

Perhaps from your perspective.

I saw Ronald Reagan conquer inflation and the Soviet Union.

I saw Newt Gingrich lead his party to control of the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years.

I do not see a conservative agenda at present. I pray conservatives in Congress will add privacy protections to their agenda.

I pray George W. Bush will not preside over an economic disaster which his opponents wish upon his party.

I pray that Republicans take back the Senate affording George W. the opportunity to follow up on his promise to appoint strict constructionists to the courts.

Strict constructionists in the highest courts would do more for privacy than any violent revolution, symbolic protest or economic disaster.

[Cobra Scott]

"Much,much harder to track non-ciizens without use of SSN.It might even be impossible in practical terms."

Not at all. I don't use SSN at all, and I have terabytes of data on 20 million americans. Actually, I don't have it, my client does, but I do much of the data mining for them. And this information is all public, if you are willing to invest the time and money to compile it.

That being said, I treat everyone like a number, for reasons related both to efficiency, and ethics. And my client goes to great pains to only market products to those who show an interest in their product, again for reasons relating to both efficiency (economic efficiency) and ethics.

But such information would be ideal for tracking criminal activity. It is already used by unethical and even criminal organizations. Ecofreaks are now putting together these types of databases, as are anti-RKBA groups. Such information could also be used by pedophiles, burglars, Scam artists, you name it.

Am I for changing the laws? I am on the fence; I don't really think it would do much good. Even if there were penalties for abuse (which there are to an extent), it would be difficult to prove, difficult to prosecute, and virtually impossible to undo. Not to mention that much of this data comes from the government itself, and still more is used by the government. And just like gun-control laws, it would be a burdon for ethical businesses and organizations, and ignored by others. Some of the telemarketing crap skirts the laws by basing operations in Canada, for instance.

[SSN558]

"But most people pay cash for pizza."

OMG I paid for a pizza with a credit card about ten years ago. PISSSSSSS ! Don't let this get out. I own guns and have experience with explosives.

[JusticeLives]

"The key is what they do with it. You have to trust your law enforcement community that even though they have access to privileged information, that they have the good judgment to use it properly."

YOU HAVE TO TRUST YOUR LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY will do their best to completely destroy your home, possessions, and reputations when they knock on your door in the middle of the night, middle of the day, middle of your bath time.

JUST ASK HATFILL's girlfriend what they did to her abode when they came knocking. My 78 year old mother in CT was SHOCKED when the media showed what they did in her home.

The scarey part is this goes on all the time across America.

Some RAIDS are done on the WRONG house.

Some RAIDS end with innocent occupants STONE COLD DEAD.

ARE YOU NEXT?

Remember this, too. They can use the excuse that you're a terrorist because you have guns, you have gun magazines, you read Soldier of Fortune, you have a photo album of your kid taking a bath posed too provcatively and take you away and you won't see a lawyer, your family, or sunshine until they decide you will.

THINK ABOUT IT.

It's UNAMERICAN.

(/rant off)

[dirtboy]

Not at all. I don't use SSN at all, and I have terabytes of data on 20 million americans. Actually, I don't have it, my client does, but I do much of the data mining for them. And this information is all public, if you are willing to invest the time and money to compile it.

I don't have quite that many records at my fingertips, maybe a couple of million businesess over the course of several years, but I share your concerns about this data. When I refuse to give out personal data to retailers and they question me about my hesitation, I simply tell them that I am protecting myself from people like myself with the capability to abuse data. I don't, but I could, and I fear the feds are getting ready to start abusing public-domain data - because, after all, what says more about you than what you buy?

[Ramius]

OK... not having gotten any bites, I'll try again.

The problem here as I see it, is not that the FBI is wanting access to what is otherwise public information. If Joe Marketer at somecompany.com has access to this stuff then why should the FBI be left out?

The real question developing here, however, and wisely so, is about what should in fact be the definition of "public" and "private" information.

I think a common sense law that could be drafted and enforced is this: ** Anyone keeping information traceable to a person must report to that person, at least annually, the contents of that information **. What's wrong with that?

It would be a good start. It would apply to credit agencies, banks, employers, markets... whomever. If you have information on someone, you tell them what you have.

What do you think? pinging hair...

[ErnBatavia]

Wow - if/when they get around to Free Republic profiles, a whole lotta us be goin' to meet Bubba.

[stimulate]

"It"s not difficult to track aliens."

Maybe not if they are here legally. In all States an SSN is required for employment and a Driver's license. No SSN,no employment. A tax I.D. can be used in some states in place of a SSN when applying for a Driver's license and that has potential tracking ability.

However, I agree with you that the SSN is over used and does lead to identity theft. I never use my SSN unless absolutely necessary.

[stimulate]

Very interesting. You sound like a very knowlegeable individual with a job that requires heavy responsibilities,but I don't see how it contradicts what I said.

[HairOfTheDog]

Hi Ramius.... Sorry I missed your ping earlier... I was over defending bachelorette parties against the fuddy duddies!

I think your proposal: ** Anyone keeping information traceable to a person must report to that person, at least annually, the contents of that information ** sounds like a big burden to a lot of businesses and agencies alike. Even I have information that fits that category in my work, and finding and sending that information to them every year would be a burdon.

Does this include my Outlook files of contacts I have made too? - I keep info on everyone I talk to, including names and addresses and phone numbers.

I should go read the article now, and see what it was about.... was just responding to your post.

[CDHart]

"However, they shouldn't go searching through the universe of data out there, hoping to find someone to suspect."

You're right, but I doubt there's any way to stop them. Technology is like government and like fire: "a dangerous servant and a fearful master." I think George Washington said that?

Carolyn

[schmelvin]

I got a request for more detailed info on the law I was referring to when I stated that my hubby and I carry a copy of this law. I decided to post the URL to the site where we first ran across this info:

http://www.cjmciver.org/free/privacy74.shtml