The Atlantic Warns Combining US Government Databases Could Create a 'Panopticon' (msn.com) 110
America's federal government "is a veritable cosmos of information, made up of constellations of databases," warns the Atlantic. The FBI "has a facial-recognition apparatus capable of matching people against more than 640 million photos — a database made up of driver's license and passport photos, as well as mug shots. The Homeland Security department holds data "about the movements of every person who travels by air commercially". America's Drug Enforcement Administration "tracks license plates scanned on American roads." And there's also every taxpayer's finance and employment history..."
Government agencies including the IRS, the FBI, DHS, and the Department of Defense have all purchased cellphone-location data, and possibly collected them too, via secretive groups such as the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. That means the government has at least some ability to map or re-create the past everyday movements of some American citizens.
But now the information at individual agencies "is being pooled together. The question is Why? And what does the administration intend to do with it?" A White House spokesperson confirmed to the Atlantic that data collected by different agencies is now being combined. (They said that "Through data sharing between agencies, departments are collaborating to identify fraud and prevent criminals from exploiting hardworking American taxpayers.") But a March executive explicitly stated an aim "to eliminate the data silos that keep everything separate." The article accuses the administration officials of "not just undoing decades of privacy measures. They appear to be ignoring that they were ever written."
The Atlantic spoke with former government officials "who have spent time in these systems," reporting that "to a person, these experts are alarmed about the possibilities for harm, graft, and abuse... Collecting and then assembling data in the industrial way — just to have them in case they might be useful — would represent a huge and disturbing shift for the government..."
"A fragile combination of decades-old laws, norms, and jungly bureaucracy has so far prevented repositories such as these from assembling into a centralized American surveillance state. But that appears to be changing... DOGE has systematically gained access to sensitive data across the federal government "in ways that people in several agencies have described to us as both dangerous and disturbing."
But now the information at individual agencies "is being pooled together. The question is Why? And what does the administration intend to do with it?" A White House spokesperson confirmed to the Atlantic that data collected by different agencies is now being combined. (They said that "Through data sharing between agencies, departments are collaborating to identify fraud and prevent criminals from exploiting hardworking American taxpayers.") But a March executive explicitly stated an aim "to eliminate the data silos that keep everything separate." The article accuses the administration officials of "not just undoing decades of privacy measures. They appear to be ignoring that they were ever written."
The Atlantic spoke with former government officials "who have spent time in these systems," reporting that "to a person, these experts are alarmed about the possibilities for harm, graft, and abuse... Collecting and then assembling data in the industrial way — just to have them in case they might be useful — would represent a huge and disturbing shift for the government..."
"A fragile combination of decades-old laws, norms, and jungly bureaucracy has so far prevented repositories such as these from assembling into a centralized American surveillance state. But that appears to be changing... DOGE has systematically gained access to sensitive data across the federal government "in ways that people in several agencies have described to us as both dangerous and disturbing."
What will Congress do? (Score:4, Insightful)
The information will show the movements of every member of Congress, as well as their friends, family members, and campaign bundlers, And it track trips to locales similar to Epstein's Island.
Re:What will Congress do? (Score:4, Insightful)
The information will show the movements of every member of Congress, as well as their friends, family members, and campaign bundlers, ...
Taking bets on who it won't be tracking, at least for the next 3.75 years ... /s
(Perhaps disabled tracking will come standard with a high enough purchase of a certain memecoin ...)
Re: (Score:2)
Taking bets on which agency is tracking ever.single.person.they.can.
Especially the one who need not be tracked, their whereabouts are broadcast and publicized worldwide.
Wow, you still don't get it. The US federal government is out of the citizens' control. Still. It's being redirected as if it were a 50 mile long oil tanker. No stop and go, no abrupt change in direction, but the inputs are so very noticeable. Watch the horizon. Not that much has changed yet. And that includes the pre-existing surveillance
Re: (Score:2)
They were being tracked before this ever came about (in the 1990s with TIA aka Total Information Awareness) That is how all of this has come to pass to begin with. I swear the public is so fucking naive when it comes to this shit. If information can be abused by those in power, it absolutely will be abused by those in power. It is how they got their power to begin with.
The USA is cooked. Done for. It is over. All because the public is willing to believe lies. Didn't Snowden wake you up at all? You should ha
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Probably to dox political enemies and other "undesirables". https://www.rollingstone.com/p... [rollingstone.com]
I know another leader who started making rival political parties illegal.
"Could" create a panopticon? (Score:2)
Pooh bear is gonna be jealous.
Also, annoyed to have competition.
I read lots of countries are taking the Chinese facial recog systems for a trial run.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't that the point?
Pooh bear is gonna be jealous.
Sir, the U.S. doesn't hold a candle to China on this stuff.
- Does the U.S. have an army of workers watching and censoring [cnn.com] the most popular social media platforms?
- Does the U.S. have a national firewall [britannica.com] blocking access to undesirable content?
- Is the U.S operating "police stations" in other countries [publicsafety.gc.ca] to enforce their laws outside their sovereign borders?
Re: (Score:3)
You mean, there's no way a foreign government can be bullied into highly-militarized arrests because the USA doesn't like someone. A third of the articles on Slashdot are about US government/corporations bullying other rich countries.
Have you watched "Mission Impossible: Dead reckoning Pt 1"? US 'police' running through foreign airports with guns drawn (and the real police refusing to shoot trigger-happy Americans): That bit of movie propaganda normalizes US contempt of foreign sovereignty. (See "Top
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
thanks, very cute (Score:4, Insightful)
I love that we're almost acknowledging the network state now that it's way too late to really do much about it other than hope their tech is bullshit
DOGE was a Pirate Operation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Found the retard
In your mirror?
Re: (Score:1)
Let me ask you something. What part of Elon Musks life and daily schedule screams to you “I’m bored and have nothing better to do with my time other than steal government data captured illegally it because I’m so broke”?
The entire fucking point of DOGE is to reduce government waste. And when I can’t even get through TFS without reading how the government was forced to use “secretive groups” to purchase mass surveillance data, it tends to scream ILLEGAL. As in WHY
Re: (Score:2)
The entire fucking point of DOGE is to reduce government waste.
And at that task, they have spectacularly failed. They have produced orders of magnitude less "savings" then they crowed about. And a lot of their "savings" were misreported with incredibly obvious mathematical flaws, if not outright stupidity. And then another tranche of cuts had to be undone because it turns out that we really do need nuclear safety inspectors and engineers, USDA researchers working on bird flu, FDA food inspectors, FAA air traffic controllers, HHS-funded screening for black lung in co
Re: (Score:2)
I will not disagree that the initial claims from DOGE were quite outlandish when it comes to savings.
That said, why don’t you tell me just how long you think it should take to execute a reasonable audit on a blatantly corrupt entity that has literally never been audited (as in the Federal Reserve). America simply sat back and accepted the fact that lawmakers in Congress consider Insider Trading a fucking job perk. Can’t get much more corruptly blatant than that without involving a dishonorably
Re: (Score:2)
That said, why don’t you tell me just how long you think it should take to execute a reasonable audit
It's hilarious that you used the word "reasonable" to try to describe what these clowns are doing.
Any reasonable audit would not be done in mere hours after getting access to the data.
Any reasonable audit would not start with firing people first, and then scrambling to rehire them when oops you fired the people researching ebola and bird flu. I've now given several examples of this same stupidity because they aren't learning from their previous mistakes, which is a hallmark of gross incompetence.
I think yo
[Citations Needed] (Score:2)
I don't doublt. But at least post links for those who do doubt..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's alarmism and it's pretending that this is the first time this has ever happened, which is so convenient for them. Makes me really wish when the "news" was boring and just about the news. Now every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks I care about their political opinions on the TV.
Fact of the matter is, regardless of which party is in charge, they have been pushing us towards a police state. Both!!!!, yes BOTH!!! have held hands and done this to us. Scroll up and read some of the other posts and you'll see lots
Re: (Score:2)
So awful people are doing awful things, but it's the media that is reporting awful people doing awful things that is the problem?
Holy shit you are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the partisan bullshit in news reporting that has been pervasive for the past 20 years. Remember when the news was boring and informational instead of being treated like entertainment and playing off your emotions to keep you engaged to see more ads? Yeah, I remember as well. It was sometime during the 90s this started to change and it's not getting any better.
Red tape exists on purpose (Score:5, Insightful)
Cutting through all the red tape to get something done seems like a romantic idea. It can seem weak and toothless to some people for our officials to comply with the bureaucracy that is in place. Some people are cheering specifically because of disruptive behavior that has the air of clout and moving mountains to accomplish things that people are worked up about. They think things must be done with great urgency and if the result isn't achieved we are doomed, and don't consider other things that could also result from brash action.
The red tape exists because we agreed it should be there. Policies and laws were ratified specifically to protect against concerns and pitfalls that people had. They were designed to prevent abuse, error, and potential security issues. People were brought on to help craft these with intent, the public could be solicited for their opinion, these were things all designed with consensus and purpose.
Cutting through that just to accomplish what you want will lead to a lot of the things we had been trying to safeguard against.
Change can be slow, but it always is when trying to ensure care and thought and consideration, and that red tape was put there by us because of the concerns we had that things could go wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Try dealing with GoDaddy. Or your health insurance company. Or corporate america. Or the "terms of service" on the internet.
At least you have choices. Government has even less competition than any of those things. If you are dealing with the government it is because you have to, not because you want to.
And yes, we have municipal, provincial and federal governments here too, and they all have various different departments. I can safely group them all together as "the government" because none of them stand out from the rest as being enjoyable to deal with. YMMV, but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll keep in mind the next time my health insurance company is trying to screw me out of paying for 100% covered preventative services because their web site shows a clinic and doctor as being in-network, but the clinic asked an out-of-network doctor to look at an x-ray film without my knowledge or consent, and now the insurance doesn't want to pay.
This has happened to my wife two years in a row for her mammogram screenings. But you say that somehow "competition" is going to fix that, when I have no choice
Re: (Score:2)
You're worried about this *now*? (Score:3)
Data-sharing amongst federal agencies and state agencies has been going on for decades.
Probably child support was the early big mover in this area. Track down "deadbeat dads" wherever they are, intercept any income, no matter how obtained, find any assets ...
Re: (Score:2)
Tax records were the exception: Paying a tithe to the government was more important than catching criminals. Nowadays, the biggest criminals are allowed to not pay tax, bury the truth and buy politicians. So this policy change is about stealing from the lower and middle classes. We've already seen the Trump government change the punishment for disobedience, into something increasing the authority of the Republican Party over US bureaucracy. That's the real goal: Every act of dissent can be punished by
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, post-Watergate sharing of IRS tax information was restricted, if not prohibited, by the Privacy Act of 1974. There is a specific carve-out for law enforcement, and the Act only applies to US Citizens and "Permanent Residents."
Guess what loopholes they're going to use?
Re: (Score:2)
It's never too late to start a movement to improve life. America despite what people presently think can actually still be a better place, it doesn't all have to be unravelling the principles and freedoms you have fought for over the years.
Much of your modern life is thanks to people who took issue with what was happening to them *now* instead of normalising it by saying it has been going on for decades. Slavery went on for decades as well until someone did something about it. Be worried about it *NOW*. You
The Atlantic? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Activists-lantic
Re: (Score:2)
They suddenly care about the NSA because a Populist is in charge of it now.
They probably freaked out about Regan too before Poppy Bush had him shot.
Since then they've been comfortable.
18F (Score:2)
The internal tech consultants in the feds that was disbanded early in the purge has this to say about the combination and collation of data:
https://18f.org/topics/keeping... [18f.org]
Because that's what a fascist state would do (Score:1)
So DOGE is the cover story. Link that to your electoral record and unleash the MAGA brown shirts . Burn the unbelievers .
Could. Speculation and panic. (Score:1)
ironic (Score:2)
.... That the first serious discussion I saw about this sort of open alignment of government databases (I rather suspect this is now quite routine in the bowels of the NSA) was during COVID, when the left and Biden administration agreed that such practices might be justified to catch and punish those dastardly folks who didn't want to take the vaccines.
Isn't this vaguely like what Canada ultimately did to identify (and, of course, punish) the protesting truckers and their families?
Re: (Score:3)
That's different because Team liberal did it. That can't do anything wrong, only Team conservative does wrong things. You need to keep up! /s
Re: (Score:2)
Glad you /s because over the last couple years (and certainly the last 6 months) Slashdot has sort of sunk so deep into the Poe's Law it's hard to tell.
trump (Score:1)
If Trump does it, surely there must be some reason that it is bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should read 1984, and not consider it as fiction, but as deadly warning.
Before the FBI comes to your door, because you've been naughty in your bedroom.
No funny (Score:2)
And the Slashdot fails me again.
Can't tell me NSA hasn't had all this info (Score:2)
That's way too juicy for them to let that drop.
didn't warn us about Biden's mental health (Score:1)
"The Atlantic warns..." (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"bothsidesism"> [wikipedia.org]
"False balance, known colloquially as bothsidesism, is a media bias in which journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence supports."
But you keep on doing you. It's working.
Re:Remember folks: it's only a problem when (Score:4)
*Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
This old story seems related somehow:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articl... [wsws.org]
Other side (Score:2)
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues... [thecritic.co.uk]
The right-on, left-wing oppressors - A flaw in the design of academic studies makes the Left appear less authoritarian than the Right
By Nina Power 2 October, 2024
- Peter Suedfeld warned 30 years ago that the field was “too blasé about left-wing authoritarianism”, and Conway argues academics have “really, really botched the research”. How did this happen? The scales used by researchers into left and right authoritarianism, it turns out, “wer
What do you think? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: What do you think? (Score:2)
I've given away everything except my firstborn as a condition of my employment. I don't give a fuck anymore.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't give much away, but I also don't give a fuck.
The U.S. has about 340M people. The odd of little ole pissing off someone important enough to use this kind of capability are practically somewhat less than the odds of me banging a super model AND her actually enjoying it and recommending me to others.
That aside, the file on me simply wouldn't be very interesting, nor be particularly revealing.
But EVEN IF it were somehow revealing, AND I were to achieve "recommended by super models" sex status (so we're
Re: (Score:3)
Trump's pettiness and lust for revenge knows no bounds and he has set up a system that can make anyone a victim.
Just ask any of his victims. Some are high profile but others are just unlucky enough to be standing in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You may think you "have nothing to hide" but that doesn't ensure protection from random ICE/police/customs/border agents who are having a bad day and want to make yours worse. This database will give them pretense to harass/detain anyone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Who or what is this 'they' you refer to? You expect me to accept your premise that every political party, and every political actor, hasn't been doing this for decades, perhaps longer?
The exceptions are few and far between. Don't bother with trying to convince me of 'your side' didn't and doesn't do this. Of course they did, and still do, and will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Remember folks: it's only a problem when (Score:5, Insightful)
A great many of us have opposed this kind of surveillance regardless of who is in charge. Yes, including under Clinton and Obama. It doesn't matter who is doing the collecting. Once the database exists, it's inevitable that it will eventually be misused. The problem is fascism, and both the Democrats and Republicans are culpable.
Re: (Score:2)
It's extremely important for people to understand this: both the Democrats and the Republicans are culpable.
The right and the left are NOT both culpable. The right are the Republicans, the center-right are the Democrats, and the left are absolutely nobody you've ever seen or will see on TV except in a mugshot. The left almost entirely opposed this surveillance from the beginning. Those who don't are frequently the subject of the kind of infighting that makes the left hard to organize, and this nonsense prov
Re: (Score:3)
What part of "unparalleled" do you not understand?
Re: Remember folks: it's only a problem when (Score:2)
Oh to hell with your non-Euclidean geometries
The problem isn't partisan (Score:5, Interesting)
there is a Republican in the White House.
You can argue it's partisanship but the truth is I never even suspected another president of using US government to attack my fellow Americans. There is a difference in behavior between a president (a representative of the people) and a tyrant (a ruler over people) and the man in the white house is not behaving like a president.
That said, I don't want mass surveillance regardless of who is in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
You can argue it's partisanship but the truth is I never even suspected another president of using US government to attack my fellow Americans.
You don't remember the Patriot Act? (Not to mention the McCarthy era, although that wasn't the president. Technically Lincoln did it, but I support that on account of stopping slavery.)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't remember the Patriot Act?
That was an act of congress (not even a partisan one) and merely signed by the president. I understand the characterization but it's very much not the same thing.
(Not to mention the McCarthy era, although that wasn't the president.
I've read about it but I'm not that old.
Technically Lincoln did it, but I support that on account of stopping slavery.)
What Lincoln did was halt an insurrection which is actually a duty of the office. Slavery was the cause for the insurrection.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Patriot Act was an act of congress (not even a partisan one) and merely signed by the president. I understand the characterization but it's very much not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
"I never even suspected another president of using US government to attack my fellow Americans."
Then you were not paying attention. That is the WHOLE POINT of the Patriot Act, and FISA. The entire reason for the existence of these tools.
Are you still not paying attention? Then keep it turned off, because we will find our government has done worse, and will keep doing worse even after we convince our representatives to deny them the legal means to justify their acts. If we ever bother to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
That is the WHOLE POINT of the Patriot Act, and FISA
Those are acts of congress (not partisan either) that were merely signed by the president. I understand the characterization but it's very much not the same thing. I would say the thing that comes closest would be Regan's firing of 11k air-traffic controllers but that was a few years prior to my existence. Historically, there are several examples of this happening but it all pales in comparison to the focus that our current president has had. Even Nixon's political enemies list was private while Trump makes
Re: (Score:2)
I never even suspected another president of using US government to attack my fellow Americans.
Richard Milhouse Nixon would like a word.
Re: (Score:2)
FDR (internment camps, destroying food during the Great Depression)
J Edgar Hoover, Eisenhower, JFK, RFK, LBJ, etc (COINTELPRO)
GHWB (Ruby Ridge)
Bill Clinton (Waco, Elian Gonzalez, clipper chip)
GWB (PATRIOT Act, Total Information Awareness)
Obama (droning American citizens)
How young and/or sheltered are you that you never suspected anyone of doing it while it's been happening and making the news for decades? This is just a quick list off the top of my head. We ca
Re: (Score:2)
You have taken my statements in the incorrect context. What I'm referring to is using the US government (specifically the Executive branch) to target specific individuals that the current US President has a grudge against.
* I wasn't alive for the actions before Regan, so everything I know about their actions is historical and abstracted. I'm not a history buff, so I cannot say I have studied every US president and era in detail enough to suspect them of things that aren't written out in plain text.
* One-off
Re: (Score:2)
They've all been spying on us for decades. The breadth of that spying has only broadened thanks to an increase in technological capability, not a change in desire. Obama and Biden both targeted individuals and groups they politically disagreed with as well. It has escalated under every single President, regardless of
Re: (Score:2)
Is this going to be one of those, "it's so obvious that I'm not going to be able to cite an example so you have to find it yourself" type claims or are you willing to point out who Biden, the previous president used the Executive branch to attack?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Biden and Obama went after conservative non-profits for having a political disagreement with their agenda.
I assume you mean the "IRS targeting controversy" which was concluded to not be the result of intentional targeting but rather a lack of funding thereby requiring the IRS to select potential groups for additional scrutiny instead of applying it to all non-profits. Everything I've learned about the situation indicated that a lack of funding to have a sufficient number of agents to investigate groups was the real issue. Any selection is going to be inherently bias which is why it's best to fully fund the IRS
Re: (Score:2)
Every president from Nixon onward has used the War Powers Act to attack Americans at some point. Obama did it harder than almost anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I don't want mass surveillance regardless of who is in charge.
You have been living in a surveillance state for decades now bro. Did you know that every tire on your vehicle has an RFID tag in it? Did you know that highway overpasses have sensors that read that tag? LOL, you are so surveilled, that the FBI can know about your rectal cranial inversion before you do.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm quite aware of the tire pressure measurement system on cars and I am aware that some bridges will ping them to keep track of how much traffic is passing. However, highway overpasses? Feel free to clue me in where you found that info.
I'm aware of the level of surveillance that is occurring (almost entirely by corporations) and I oppose it. I willfully do not use a smartphone or typical social media because of it, bro.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Remember folks: it's only a problem when (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"like trump blaming tariffs tanking the world economy on Biden."
Except he hasn't done that. Listen carefully, he blames multiple Presidents and administrations for bringing us to such a state that our government is spending unsustainably, manufacturing has been given to China (and other nations within their sphere of influence), and our economy has been damaged such that it is sight of real trouble.
You disagree? Citations. When did Trump blame Biden for tariffs? Feel free to restate your assertion to avoid
Re: (Score:2)
Does he also blame himself, as he spent more in 4 years than Obama did in 8?
Obama's tally of US Debt in 8 years: $7,663,615,710,425.00
Trump's tally of US Debt in 4 years (2017-2021): $7,804,591,681,202.28
(source) [investopedia.com]
And don't bother with the "but but but pandemic!" because remember that Obama got the pleasure of inheriting all of GWB's economic fuckups when he took office in 2009; to say nothing of a 2020 pandemic not causing 2018 tax cuts we could not afford with no meaningful companion spending cuts.
I guess y
Re: (Score:2)
"You probably saw some numbers today, and I have to start off by saying that's Biden," Trump said to reporters, without elaborating as he referred to his Democratic predecessor.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-deflects-blame-economy-contraction-says-be-patient-2025-04-30/
Re: (Score:2)
Welker followed up by trying to get him to commit to a timeframe when he would take full ownership of the economy.
"When does it become the Trump economy?"
"It partially is right now," Trump replied. "And I really mean this. I think the good parts are the Trump economy and the bad parts are the Biden economy."
https://www.mediaite.com/news/trump-tries-to-have-it-both-ways-on-economy-the-good-parts-are-mine-the-bad-parts-are-bidens/
Re: (Score:2)
there is a Republican in the White House
The only problem here is your biased blindness. The fact you can't recall discussions here on Slashdot during Democrat rulings is your mental deficiency, not a trend outside of the nation.
But fear not!
I do fear. The people like you who make everything a partisan issue are quite scary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Best not to give government to much trust period. State's can be just as bad as federal governments, given the chance.
Still, I under that a lot of people like to be in a state that leans their direction in politics. I'm not one of them but I know plenty of people that are. On both sides of the spectrum because your average person wants to be in their safe bubble and would rather not get push back on their ideas. People tend to dislike being challenged on their beliefs because then they have to actually try
Re: (Score:1)
I trust the US (DHS, etc.) a lot more with personal data than foreign agents or private companies.
Interesting.
I fear my own U.S. government more than I fear any other government or "terrorist" organization.
Why? Because it is the organization that is most likely and able to do me harm.
That said, as I posted earlier, I don't care about its surveillance capability, as it applies to watching me. Go ahead and watch. There isn't anything interesting to see.
Candidates for rendition to a panopticon? (Score:2)
I would nominate AC. No one would miss him.
As regards the story, I think it's rather too late. We're already living in a panopticon. The main key to your cell is that little smartphone in your pocket.
Now to see if there's any Funny in the discussion. Lots of low-hanging fruit on this one.