I don't find it credible that someone is committed enough to doing you harm that they're willing to rot in prison for the rest of their lives but not quite committed enough to look up the public data themselves instead of finding it conveniently collated for them.
Why? They use it to compile a witness list, maybe suspect list, rule out many people, as a first approximation. As long as the data is archived and not open for abusive use; where do you feel any harm comes in?
That collection of data won't exonerate you because you won't have access to it; the only data which will be used is that which is potentially bad for you. And why would you have all this faith that the govt. is only using this data in good faith? Do you remember Aaron Schwartz? He wasn't an isolated incident: its very easy for the federal government to bring charges against anyone they want at any time, especially when they have all this data about you.
I see what you're saying, but I think that the onus should be on the government to clearly demonstrate where the value from collecting this data will come from.
What improvements has the Charleston PD made with this data? What improvements are they planning on making? They offer precisely one example of a man convicted for murder using that information, but while they claim it's "crucial", we can't exactly go back and see if he would have been convicted without that one particular row in the database.
We can't even get the data without paying nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
Fine; let's use data about me to improve things. But tell me what you're going to improve, tell me how long you're going to keep the data, and find a damn good way to reassure me that it won't be used to harm me, either.
The point is that the risks are much lower if there's not a database storing this information to be leaked in the first place.
The whole "if you don't want to go to jail, don't commit crimes" line of thinking really falls apart when you realize that the legal system is well beyond the ability for a layman to navigate on a day to day basis and gets even worse when you have a perfect surveillance state capable of seeing and storing massive amounts of data.
Data isn't knowledge. Records like these seldom, but not never, actually cast a useful light. The worst of the malfeasance can pay for the workarounds or don't care that the information they record is simply false. Without the power of a criminal investigation you can't do anything about the obfuscated or false information, and with a criminal investigation there is little need for the database-- because you can pull the records directly, subpoena the relevant parties, etc..
But an honest business person isn't setting up a maze of proxies. Their PII is published, exposing them to crazies, kidnappers, extortionists (including extortionists that use the courts), and suppressing their free expression because any harsh word uttered online can send off someone with a grudge to invade their lives, any unpopular view can unleash a total war on whatever they're connected to.
[It's not even that uncommon for a poster to tick off a HN commenter only to have them come back with irrelevant personal information as means of intimidation, and HN is a lot nicer than much of the internet.]
Where corrupt public figures have been a concern-- apply the transparency directly to the public figures: At least then it's just part of the tradeoff in assuming the responsibility and they can be compensated accordingly (private security is remarkably expensive...).
That data needs to be in a filing cabinet in case law enforcement are investigating accusations of a crime, likely with a warrant. There's absolutely no reason to be keeping such incredibly sensitive information, which presents a severe risk to the person's livelihood and life, on a public facing server because no one - absolutely no one - has any reason to be querying it from the public internet.
Intentionally building a database whose sold purpose is to track tens of millions of mostly-innocent people as they go about their business for years on end is a bad idea.
The point isn't that the US government has never done anything evil or will never do anything evil again. The point is that you aren't going to stop someone determined to commit evil by making it slightly more administratively difficult. If we fear that eventual evil, let's work to prevent it. Let's stop allowing this potential abuse to be the sole deciding factor against us doing good work today. It didn't stop us when we built the interstate highway system, which was largely built to facilitate military transport, so why should it stop us now?
Also I'm not asking for a database including every possible detail about a person. I see no reason why something like race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, or an number of other traits should be recorded. But a simple database with names, DOB, most recent address, a national id, etc would be extremely helpful.
I guess my view of the situation is that the massive collection of data only becomes a problem in situations where we can absolutely not trust our government, and if things get that bad then we have much bigger problems than the government having a lot of data about us. At that point they don't need evidence of wrongdoing to drag people into the street and shoot them, so it doesn't matter to me if they have it.
That's actually a much more reasonable answer than the one I had imagined. The unfortunate part is that I don't trust anyone not to misuse the data, especially not government employees.
Problem is history has shown that the mere existence of such information is too much of a temptation to resist. The "extraordinary" circumstances used to justify getting this data has a way of expanding over time until it becomes almost any routine reason being justification enough. The only way to combat this is for the information to not exist.
Yes, in some cases this means a guilty person will go free but we have a long standing belief in western legal culture that it is better for some of the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent for the actions of the guilty. Invading everyone's privacy in the name of catching the small minority that engage in criminal activities is punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty.
Yeah. I’m a lot more upset that the data is for sale in the first place. I want our government to have any helpful data that is public because I assume bad actors have it also. I just don’t want a lot of data to the public.
And I'm sure that database is already being abused by all manner of federal agencies in ways it isn't supposed to be, so I don't see any reason to make it even easier for them.
I hate this crime, but having said that, your argument doesn't hold water.
As another commenter pointed out, they can't even keep their own stuff secure. In addition, if politically it's useful, you can bet that somehow it'll find a way to get out: the Justice Department aren't the only folks able to do parallel construction. Plus folks in government agencies leak confidential stuff all the time on deep background, or as a way of scoring political points.
This is a terrible thing, but it's a terrible thing because people procuring and owning massive datasets on other people is wrong. I understand that society's morals haven't caught up with that yet, but that's the only solution that makes any sense: I own my data, I store my data, under certain conditions I may lease/lend you my data for a limited time only -- and all other uses of it, whether by private or governmental bodies -- is theft.
reply