6 ms·
Faces, DNA, and relationships aren’t particularly new data points. The government has my passport photo, DNA (military record), and can check out my tax returns
by dvdhnt 8y ago
Faces, DNA, and relationships aren’t particularly new data points. The government has my passport photo, DNA (military record), and can check out my tax returns, Facebook, Twitter, etc to see who my wife, children, business partners, coworkers, and other family are.
The fundamental issue with their new database is that some analysis will be done on all of that data, along with criminal and public records, to characterize someone and store the result in the database. At that point, you’ve been classified and good luck getting out of whatever box they put you in (just see no fly lists for an example).
Now that you’re on some list, it snowballs. Every encounter with agents, every flight, every new relationship, any odd transaction will just make it worse and solidify how much of a threat/person of interest/terrorist/extremist you are.
Source: I’m a former intelligence analyst.
- pera 8y agoDNA records would be new for the vast majority of Americans (i.e. non-veteran civilians).
- dvdhnt 8y agoTrue, but the actual percentage of “vast” is debatable. There are many ways that your DNA can be collected including when being arrested, for medical treatment, military or civil service, or just at birth [1]. 1. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/04/baby.dna.government/ind...
- djmips 8y agoOr volunteered to an online genetic testing service.
- chiefalchemist 8y agoOr a blood relative.
- dtornabene 8y agoits "vast" if the actual amount thats been collected previously is negligible and now its to be generalized to the whole population.
- windexh8er 8y agoIt's likely the government has your DNA, especially if you've been born in the US in the last 20-30 years due to newborn blood banks. An example of California having a database going back to 1983: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/14/california-newborn-dna-database-shocks-parents/ http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/14/california-newborn...
- trumped 8y agoThey asked for my child's DNA when they were born (in case they get kidnapped, they said), but I declined (this was Florida).
- scruple 8y agoSome states are opt-in, California is not. The state is required to inform new parents that they can make a request to have it destroyed, but there is some contention that most new parents aren't told and/or don't understand. So, the state collects this DNA data in to a large database and then makes it available for law enforcement and also sells it to "outside researchers" -- whatever that means [0]. There's no consent here and not much awareness or knowledge of the fact that this goes on. [0]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-biobank-dna-babies-who-has-access/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-biobank-dna-babies-w...
- stevew20 8y agoThis post is 100% spot on. Ask the folks at Palantir under what conditions a person stops being identified as a 'target' in their database... Hint: everything you do, on a daily basis, can be construed as incriminating. Source: Worked in an intelligence battalion for 5 years.
- solotronics 8y agoyes but what do we do about it? mesh networks? private data security? (GDPR doesn't apply to police/state security...)
- mirimir 8y agoMy solution is not attracting attention. Basically through compartmentalization. My meatspace identity is entirely unremarkable. I'm not outspoken about privacy. Or about anything, really. I do hit the Internet through a VPN, but that's fairly common in my country.
- vitno 8y agoThat's not "not attracting attention", that's called living in fear. I don't know the particulars of where you live, but it makes me sad you feel this is necessary.
- mirimir 8y agoMaybe so. But fear is rational sometimes. I wouldn't have survived long as an acid dealer without extreme discretion. Alternatives include conforming to unjust laws, or violating openly and ending up imprisoned. Neither sound like fun. Or, yes, going somewhere else. But in my experience, there's really nowhere to go. So hey.
- stareatgoats 8y agoAt a certain point on this trajectory, that strategy will raise red flags too. Mass surveillance is a direct violation of the fourth amendment, outlawing it completely is the only reasonable solution.
- sbhn 8y agoWhy do you people keep calling it ‘Intellegence’, it’s ‘Insecurity’.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- omginternets 8y ago>Source: I’m a former intelligence analyst. In your (formerly) professional opinion, how should we be identifying and characterizing threats? Where does emerging technology (ML/AI, etc) perform well?
- dominotw 8y agoI got stopped at airport Port of entry and they had all the details of my roommates, roommates spousses. This was back in 2006. I can't even imagine what they have now.
- merinowool 8y agoNow before the WWII German intelligence built databases of polish elites, scientists, politicians, activists, actors and their families, so when the war started they were able to quickly round them up and exterminate. Imagine something like this happens again in the US - enemy gaining access to such database would have everything on a silver platter. Even more plausible motive would be if future government wanted to remove people that they deem enemy to the state (incompatible political beliefs). It would be easy to just deliver them poison disguised as Amazon delivery and have the nation cleansed of the problematic populace. Such database is irresponsible on another level.