Null

[Fantine]

I discuss behavior patterns. Obviously some people like those behaviors.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

We realize that. It's a question of how the database will be used.

What are those fears?

Is there something in particular people are afraid the administration will do with the data that's lies outside the scope of enforcing the law? (which is the duty of the executive branch)

For example

If it's a case where "He's going to publish your address on alt-right message boards so that his followers can harass you"...then I'd agree that would be a problem.

However, if it's a case where "he'll use the data to be able to more effectively enforce the laws we don't agree with, and we don't like that, we want it to be as cumbersome as possible to enforce the laws we disagree with", then that's not a compelling argument.

 

[Fantine]

What are those fears?

Is there something in particular people are afraid the administration will do with the data that's lies outside the scope of enforcing the law? (which is the duty of the executive branch)

For example

If it's a case where "He's going to publish your address on alt-right message boards so that his followers can harass you"...then I'd agree that would be a problem.

However, if it's a case where "he'll use the data to be able to more effectively enforce the laws we don't agree with, and we don't like that, we want it to be as cumbersome as possible to enforce the laws we disagree with", then that's not a compelling argument.

His track record inspires distrust.

 

[Henrye]

His track record inspires distrust.

The thing is that as I read this thread I see you expressing opinion without facts. That is a problem.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I discuss behavior patterns. Obviously some people like those behaviors.

Like loosing the bid for a Presidential run because you committed plagiarism?

 

[rockytopva]

Trump is building a database on all Americans... Yea... Sitting in his oval office now typing away! Maybe some generous soul will oil his lamp for him!

 

[RDKirk]

If it's a case where "He's going to publish your address on alt-right message boards so that his followers can harass you"...then I'd agree that would be a problem.

Something like that, yeah. He'll probably use the DOJ, though.

But more likely, it leaves greater opportunity for a massive data breach.

It would certainly create Target Number One for all the hackers in the world.

 

[wing2000]

Would it make anyone else equally uneasy if they were find out that of those 200+ data points outlined, most of that stuff is already available for purchase (completely legally if you've got the $$$ and a secure datacenter) via Business Intelligence data brokers who sell that stuff all the time to companies who get it for BI/Analytics purposes? lol

Yes, I am well aware that all of my activity on line creates a data trail that is exploited for profit. I am also well aware of political campaigns using that data to influence who I vote for.

It is my choice to participate on the internet....or not (though one might argue it's increasingly difficult not to participate).

However, in this case, it is the Federal Government compiling a single profile based on data that I am required to share with the Federal government. Do you think it's a good idea to have the IRS share your tax information across government agencies?

 

[BCP1928]

What are those fears?

Is there something in particular people are afraid the administration will do with the data that's lies outside the scope of enforcing the law? (which is the duty of the executive branch)

For example

If it's a case where "He's going to publish your address on alt-right message boards so that his followers can harass you"...then I'd agree that would be a problem.

However, if it's a case where "he'll use the data to be able to more effectively enforce the laws we don't agree with, and we don't like that, we want it to be as cumbersome as possible to enforce the laws we disagree with", then that's not a compelling argument.

Great dichotomy, Rob.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, I am well aware that all of my activity on line creates a data trail that is exploited for profit. I am also well aware of political campaigns using that data to influence who I vote for.

It is my choice to participate on the internet....or not (though one might argue it's increasingly difficult not to participate).

However, in this case, it is the Federal Government compiling a single profile based on data that I am required to share with the Federal government. Do you think it's a good idea to have the IRS share your tax information across government agencies?

It has nothing to do with just the internet-related stuff.

If you've ever made a payment via credit card in a Brick and Mortar store, that data is provided via the aforementioned data brokers.


As far as data sharing across government agencies...what exactly is it that I should be afraid of in that regard?

The sensitive pieces of information that I would be concerned about, are already available to them anyway.

Is there a specific use case or scenario you had in mind that was a cause for concern?

 

[Henrye]

If the government wants to follow boring old me then go for it. I’m sure there will be some snores and boredom.

Conspiracy theories are getting old. lol

 

[wing2000]

The sensitive pieces of information that I would be concerned about, are already available to them anyway.

Until this administration, your IRS data was not shared with other government agencies. It remained within the IRS. There is no need for the DHS, for example. to have access to your tax data.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Until this administration, your IRS data was not shared with other government agencies. It remained within the IRS. There is no need for the DHS, for example. to have access to your tax data.

In doing some brief reading, it looks like Canada, Australia, UK (and a few others) allow for inter-departmental sharing of that information, particularly for matters of law enforcement and national security matters.

And that data sharing appears to be much more "open" in the Scandinavian countries.

In fact, in Norway, it's actually publicly accessible online (if you want to look up your neighbors info)

Norway: The country where no salaries are secret

In Norway, anyone can find out how much anyone else is paid, and it rarely causes problems, writes Lars Bevanger.

www.bbc.com

As far as why DHS would want that sort of access...

On the counter-terrorism front:
Tax returns could be quite effective at tracking down suspicious financial activity pertaining to shell corps or foreign funding


On the immigration enforcement front:
Verification of work stipulations for residency permits -- meaning if the entire premise of the work visa you received was contingent on the fact that you were being allowed in to add benefit via working in a specific field, and you quietly left that job (or quit working altogether) 8 months ago, that could be information of interest.

Aiding in the detection of employers who are engaging in illegal hiring practices

 

[Hans Blaster]

In doing some brief reading, it looks like Canada, Australia, UK (and a few others) allow for inter-departmental sharing of that information, particularly for matters of law enforcement and national security matters.

And that data sharing appears to be much more "open" in the Scandinavian countries.

In fact, in Norway, it's actually publicly accessible online (if you want to look up your neighbors info)

Does this look like a monarchy?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Does this look like a monarchy?

Noting that those countries aren't monarchies in the true traditional sense, it's more of a ceremonial figurehead title in those places now (each of those countries have parliamentary systems where the legislature and Prime Minister actually hold the power)

What does that have to do with anything?


I know it's not a case where progressives are sincerely concerned about "government being too big" or "getting too much intel on people".

These are the same folks who, over the last 10 years, applauded ideas like gun registries, digital vaccine passports, social media surveillance, and forcing banks to report inflows/outflows of cash that exceeded $600.

So they're certainly not libertarians by any stretch of the imagination.

If this had been a Obama proposal, people would be applauding it as a "bold new step towards government efficiency" like they did with his 2009 EHR mandate (that was basically an attempt at a national registry of healthcare data)


And where was the same outcry pertaining to this act?

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47255

Or any number of the other democratic proposals to give FinCEN broader authority in the name of "targeting conservative dark money" or "collecting financial data on people who may be right-wing extremists"

 

[Hans Blaster]

Noting that those countries aren't monarchies in the true traditional sense, it's more of a ceremonial figurehead title in those places now (each of those countries have parliamentary systems where the legislature and Prime Minister actually hold the power)

They've all got a monarch. That's what it takes to be a monarchy.

What does that have to do with anything?

Just trying to put them in bin we don't fit in, instead I got monarchy what-abouts. Would this help better?

If all the other countries jump off the bridge, are you going to as well?

I know it's not a case where progressives are sincerely concerned about "government being too big" or "getting too much intel on people".

I guess now we get the usual dose of "what about the liberals". Sigh.

These are the same folks who, over the last 10 years, applauded ideas like gun registries,

You want unregistered guns floating around?

digital vaccine passports,

Those, I recall, were about making it easier to demonstrate vaccination to a place that required it. Of course the little paper card works just as well, but these "millenials" are all "phone based" now.

social media surveillance,

ah, what?

and forcing banks to report inflows/outflows of cash that exceeded $600.

also, what?

So they're certainly not libertarians by any stretch of the imagination.

the actual "Libertarians" are nuts, so why would anyone non-nuts want to be them.

If this had been a Obama proposal, people would be applauding it as a "bold new step towards government efficiency" like they did with his 2009 EHR mandate (that was basically an attempt at a national registry of healthcare data)

I seriously don't get this level of partisanship, where every even slightly related things a group's members did or proposed in the past somehow invalidates what they propose now. If Rand Paul want's to argue against this, I welcome it, but that doesn't mean he isn't generally a dingbat. (I really don't understand how people live with this level of grudge holding and entanglement.)