The Atlantic Warns Combining US Government Databases Could Create a 'Panopticon' (msn.com) 47
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 ...)
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.
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]
What do you think? (Score:2, Troll)
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: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)
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)
Re: Remember folks: it's only a problem when (Score:2)
"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
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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:2)
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.
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
The Atlantic? (Score:2)
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.