Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:28PM   Printer-friendly
from the INSERTion-of-the-innocent dept.

Tim Cushing at Techdirt writes: The FBI's Criminal Database Is Filling Up With Non-Criminals And No One In Law Enforcement Seems To Care

America has long held the position as the world's foremost imprisoner of its own citizens. Around 2 million people are incarcerated in America, giving us nearly one-fourth of the world's total prison population. Spending any length of time in prison is a good way to destroy your future. But even if you never spend a day inside — or even end up facing charges — there's a good chance you'll still be facing a bleak future should you ever have the misfortune to be booked.

Over the past 20 years, authorities have made more than a quarter of a billion arrests, the Federal Bureau of Investigation estimates. As a result, the FBI currently has 77.7 million individuals on file in its master criminal database—or nearly one out of every three American adults.

Between 10,000 and 12,000 new names are added each day.

This master database is accessed by thousands of employers running pre-hire background checks, as well as by banks and landlords. One moment of stupidity, even if it never results in time served, could derail someone's life. Arrests are damaging, even if it's ultimately determined that no criminal activity occurred. How many thousands of people are being turned down for loans or rejected by landlords simply because a cop made up BS charges to arrest a photographer or deployed handcuffs instead of responsible crowd control?

At what point will the data contain everyone in the 99% At what point can we expect to corrupt the database with an overrun of data?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by AnonTechie on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:44PM

    by AnonTechie (2275) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:44PM (#88634) Journal

    Yet, this country thinks it is the land of the free and brave ! Wow !

    --
    Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:49PM (#88698)

      America is now the land of the cowards.

      They celebrate their forebears and believe that, through association, they are somehow made better. For all of us, the reality is that the achievements of our parents are their achievements, and not ours.

      My Australian-born grandfather served in the US Army around 1920. Apparently, he won a medal for marksmanship.

      He served as a radio operator of a coastal vessel during World War 2.

      I can remember his ham equipment in his garage, from when I was very small.

      These are things from his life, not mine.

      My life has been, comparatively, a dull disaster. I'll never manage half of what he did. (My mother is a physically and psychologically abusive person and the resulting brain damage has ruined my life. It has impacted my short-term memory and my ability to learn new material - and she had the cheek to tell me that she was protecting me from my father. That's not what my maternal grandmother tells me, these days.)

      None of his actions make me great, or brave.

      I have inherited no wealth, so I am not powerful through the actions of family (unlike the owner of my workplace, who inherited millions but thinks of himself as a self-made man), but then, I do not live with constant propaganda telling me how awesome I am because of who my parents were.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 03 2014, @02:05AM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @02:05AM (#88724) Journal

      Hadn't you heard? It's a "Homeland" now. Fits on the shelf right next to "Fatherland" and "Motherland."

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 07 2014, @06:56AM (#90437)

        That term "Homeland" really bothers me too. It brings me images of Germany in WWII. I was in Vietnam and I love what this country was. It has become something I'm not proud of. Homeland indeed!

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Snow on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:47PM

    by Snow (1601) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:47PM (#88636) Journal

    My dad used to be a lawyer, and I worked there for a summer just typing things up. One thing that was standard operating procedure, was that if in the end there were no charges (due to either outright winning or more likely a suspended sentance type deal), then after all the conditions were met, a letter would be sent to the police asking them to distroy any fingerprints, photographs and send back confirmation once that had been done.

    Can you do the same thing to the FBI? What if you have a lawyer do it on your behalf?

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Blackmoore on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:17PM

      by Blackmoore (57) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:17PM (#88646) Journal
      Procedure changed after 9/11. Local police routinely send those details to the FBI and you get added to that large database - even if the police are instructed to destroy the information; it is too late.
      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:22PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:22PM (#88649) Journal

        It was never that way pre 9/11.

        Arrest records never get destroyed. They exist in too many places, police stations, jails, newspapers, and state and federal databases.

        They may not be meaningful arrests, but that doesn't mean that a simple letter from a lawyer will have any effect on getting these records purged.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:27PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:27PM (#88676)

          Its the Hotel Big Data - you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.

        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by demonlapin on Wednesday September 03 2014, @12:13AM

          by demonlapin (925) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @12:13AM (#88706) Journal
          Correct. I signed up for Global Entry/TSA PreCheck a few years ago because, well, I've been fingerprinted for a concealed carry license and as part of the intake process for medical school (and again when I became a resident). I'm already in the database, I might as well enjoy the benefits.

          One of the interview questions - there weren't many - was whether I had ever been arrested. Nope. As soon as I said that, the TSA agent told me that was their #1 fail question - if you were arrested in 1963 in Nowhere, Nevada, they knew about it, even if you weren't convicted and the experience was later "expunged from the record".
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Wednesday September 03 2014, @12:18AM

            by frojack (1554) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @12:18AM (#88709) Journal

            You'll find these guys already know the answer to every question they ask.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday September 03 2014, @01:42PM

              by JeanCroix (573) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @01:42PM (#88888)
              Exactly. They're not asking because they want to know, they're asking to see if you'll lie to them.
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by _NSAKEY on Wednesday September 03 2014, @05:57AM

          by _NSAKEY (16) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @05:57AM (#88777)

          I'd vote this up if I had mod points.

          You can't forget data brokers, which are private entities. Expungement orders and the like don't apply to them. If you're interested in reading a bit more, the first few pages of this are good: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7423&context=jclc [northwestern.edu]

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by pendorbound on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:36PM

            by pendorbound (2688) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:36PM (#88944) Homepage

            Expunge / seal orders DO apply to data brokers (legally anyway), but a lot of the shadier ones obtain their data by non-official channels and thus don’t receive (and probably wouldn’t honor) such orders.

            In most cases, a legit data broker signs an agreement with the providing agency that they will remove any records which are at any point in the future covered by a seal, and in return for that agreement (and some money…) they receive a feed of arrests, convictions, etc. Shady places just screen-scrape public websites that list the same information, so they get it for free and also don’t bother to remove records that later disappear from the public listing when they become sealed.

  • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:49PM

    by SlimmPickens (1056) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @08:49PM (#88637)

    1 It's really annoying to read an article I've already read half of. Personally I'd prefer a very short summary.

    2 How can this be legal? Surely some entity can be class actioned for this?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Blackmoore on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:15PM

      by Blackmoore (57) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:15PM (#88644) Journal
      It can't be legal.

      if your rule of law states that "innocent until proven guilty" this kind of database, and access to it is a reality of "Guilty even after innocence is proven"

      that isnt a rule of law, but a rule of fear; a rule where the 99% can be forced into a perpetual cycle of decreasing quality of life.  it's a form of enslavement; by denial of opportunity.
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:18PM

        by frojack (1554) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:18PM (#88648) Journal

        Having an arrest record in the database doesn't make you Guilty, it simply states that you were arrested. Unless there is a conviction, you are still not guilty. Guilt isn't a fact, its a legal determination.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:43PM

          by mhajicek (51) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:43PM (#88662)

          True. It is a form of punishment without guilt; one of several which are part of the US legal system.

          --
          The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:07PM

            by frojack (1554) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:07PM (#88672) Journal

            So this doesn't occur everywhere in the world, is that what you are saying?

            The fact that you were arrested in Sweden is somehow erased from all public knowledge when charges are dropped or you are found not guilty? People are sent to libraries with razor blades to cut the reports of your arrest and trial out of every news paper?

            Arrest is a public knowledge event. Its that way everywhere, except where people are simply "disappeared".

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:41PM (#88681)

              Yes newspapers in libraries have exactly the same impact on a person's life as networked and commercialized databases.

              This "public is public and private is private dammit!" attitude is sooooo fucking tiring. What does it take for you to open your eyes and realize that the world is a fuckton more complex than that? That the customs and conventions developed over hundreds of years of paper-based data distribution are not appropriate for a world where databases are essentially unbounded? You are like a guy who can't comprehend why he has to use a brake pedal instead of attaching reins to his car.

            • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:52PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:52PM (#88700)

              So this doesn't occur everywhere in the world, is that what you are saying?

              I read and re-read the GP's post and saw no such statement, or even hints of one, in the text.

              Perhaps the GP was not being so self-absorbed and arrogant as to suggest knowledge of foreign legal systems? That seems rather likely.

              You, on the other hand, are a dick.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:50PM

          by edIII (791) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:50PM (#88699)

          Guilt isn't a fact, its a legal determination.

          Absolutely wrong. Guilt exists in many states and simply collapses depending on how you looked at it. Guilt is an *opinion*, not a fundamental truth exposed with rationale and logic. If I performed an action, I'm not guilty of that action. I performed it. It's simply true. Guilt is the projection of an emotional abstraction replete with labels and judgements from others assigned to my actions.

          Sounds esoteric and more philosophical than a simple and rationale conclusion determining a state, I know.

          My point is though is that simply being in the list means that the information must be assessed in some way. It's very existence contributes to the overall equation and doesn't necessarily cancel out.

          Blackmoore's point was correct. It is not a logical matter of a state (law), and exists as a set of dynamic value judgement commonly accompanied by a lack of logic, rationale, and Information Symmetry (fear).

          "People are dumb panicky animals, and you know it"

          However those data points are showing up the background checks has it's usage polluted with value judgments from the start. Guilt is assumed because you are on the list. It represents an unknown quantity, and unless you are in the room with person, denied any real defense. People usually come to their own conclusions pretty fast in the face of something unknown.

          It's perfectly reasonable to assume that 100% impartial and logical rules will not be applied to your file, but that a regular fallible human being will be judging you. That doesn't always turn out real well, and the person can just move on to the person without the flag. Even worse, are the logical rules and assumptions that the programmers, system developers, and mathematicians may make. Just how vetted are they? Do they make sense? Do every single one of them pass reasonably strict tests for logic?

          This acts to deny opportunity through duress. The whole system should be illegal because it's essentially one huge fucking duress engine.

          Citizen: I'm a victim of circumstance. The landlord never told me the previous tenant had allowed 1900 million gallons of cat piss into the floor. It became a health issue and I had to move. Bad economy, lower hours (reduced benefits), and I could not afford a real legal defense. Loss of the security deposit the landlord refused to get back precluded my use of a lawyer. I'm a moron, and did not know how to defend myself. Sheriff locked me out and I got arrested because I needed my stuff to live and possibly sell. I now have a record of charges.

          Landlord: I have a legal contract with associated debt. I sell it to a debt collector.

          Debt collector: I immediately engage in a hostile campaign of harassment against citizen. Threaten them with incorrect and misleading interpretations of law. I don't get paid. I report it to the credit reporting agencies.

          Credit reporting agencies: No, we did need a whole lot of info. Just send us thousands of negatives at a time and we will just add them. Their score just dropped 35 points.

          Law Enforcement: There was an arrest. Criminal trespass charges exist. No, we don't have any real context. Besides, no "context" field exists to put in. Just misleading facts, mam...

          There is no equal footing of any kind for the citizen. The rules of law that allow remediation to a citizen are highly regulated, time consuming, and require resources. Ruining your reputation takes a few bits and bytes of bandwidth is accomplished in seconds, not the many months to get detractions removed.

          Classic duress. This makes people fearful and creates an unfair advantage to those that are able to ruin the reputations (creditors & LEO). From a legal point of view, I find it interference in a contract between two parties and invalidates any contracts made under it.

          I was forced out of my house through mortgage fraud and my perfect score plummeted. For the 6 months I lived in another state on a project I was forced to spend an additional $1200 in NON_REFUNDABLE security deposits simply due to those background and financial checks. I could have not paid it, but it required too much cash upfront. My ability to access credit at reasonable interest rates was not present. Besides, it should have cost me ZERO.

          The denial of opportunity is often secondary to the very real punitive punishments that are directly derived from information presented in a system wholly devoid of any due process

          So while you may be correct that guilt *can* be a legal determination, it's often just a value judgment. None of these systems involved are to the benefit of society (the citizen) and only serve to provide additional sources of leverage against them.

          Ask yourself if you think the average person is able to defend themselves, much less even be aware of the effect happening. Now ask yourself if that unknown quantity and fear makes you think twice about just how mad you are you got screwed? Would you just roll over and take a couple hundred dollar loss because due process it too costly, the game too skewed, and the outcome uncertain?

          Sounds to me like a system that creates so much fear it even convinces you to act guilty whenever you never were.

          Where is your clean logical mathematical state of guilt now? ;)

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @07:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @07:47AM (#88803)

            Guilt isn't a fact, its a legal determination.

            Absolutely wrong.

            You're mixing up two different concepts which are described with the same word: The moral concept of guilt, and the legal concept of guilt. The fact that their concepts are related (but not identical) certainly doesn't help.

            Legally, you are not guilty until a court declared you guilty. Even if you did a crime in the open for everyone to see, and it is common knowledge, denied by nobody, not even yourself, that it is a crime and you've done it, you're still legally not guilty, but merely suspect.

      • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:06PM

        by SlimmPickens (1056) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:06PM (#88671)

        It can't be legal.

        So what to do? Can someone be sued? FBI? Lawmakers?

        Kickstarter?

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 03 2014, @02:15AM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @02:15AM (#88725) Journal

        Oh, we're quite past the "rule of law" now. The NSA affair alone has proven that. They've violated the US Constitution "15-20 trillion times" [William Binney], but nobody in Congress has batted an eyelash. The Director of National Intelligence Eric Clapper flagrantly lied to Congress, but is not in jail or even sanctioned in any way. We also have lots of other stuff like HSBC bankers getting caught red-handed laundering billions of dollars for the Mexican drug cartels (the guys who do mass beheadings) and not even getting a slap on the wrist. It's not limited to the federal level, either. Local cops can now murder citizens with impunity, no matter how many eye witness accounts and video evidence exist that damn them.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Wednesday September 03 2014, @01:46PM

          by JeanCroix (573) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @01:46PM (#88891)
          OMG celebrities' n00dz were hacked! FBI's top priority!
    • (Score: 5, Funny) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:35PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:35PM (#88655) Homepage

      How can this be legal? Surely some entity can be class actioned for this?

      For writing long summaries? Seems a bit harsh.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 2) by SlimmPickens on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:46PM

        by SlimmPickens (1056) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:46PM (#88664)

        lol, Just to be clear, I mean copying and pasting half of the article. Longness is OK with me ;)

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @07:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @07:35AM (#88799)

      How can this be legal?

      Well, it says criminal database right in the title, doesn't it? I mean, a database cannot be both criminal and legal at the same time, right? ;-)

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:11PM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:11PM (#88643) Journal

    According to my rough calculations, the population, minus those already in the database, divided by the number added per day indicates we will all be in the database in 55 years.

    Still with 33400 arrests per day (2012 FBI figures), but only getting 12,000 into the database daily it would seem that there is some inefficiency or leakage in the system.

    It can't be that nearly two thirds of people arrested are getting off scott free. That will never do!!! Something must be done to improve efficiency. If we could get ALL those arrests into the database we would have everyone in there in 19.8 years.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by Snow on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:17PM

      by Snow (1601) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:17PM (#88647) Journal

      Maybe because 2/3rds of the people were already in the database?

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:27PM (#88652)

      The 12,000 are the new additions. The other 21,400 were already in the system. The number of recidivist offenders is pretty high: the same people go through the system again and again. Think domestic problems, where the husband beats the wife, goes to jail, comes home, beats her again, goes to jail, etc. Also drunks and vagrants.

      Bear in mind that there were around 10,000 infants born every day in the US in 2010, a number that's been decreasing. The 12,000/day new additions indicates that the percentage of the population in the databases is slowly increasing, but not enough that we're all going to be on file in under twenty years.

      Listen to the old Dragnet radio shows from the 50's: the LA cops, like those in any big city, were keeping huge municipal databases even then, first on books, then cards run through a computer. They had a data department even then to manage the information, and they kept everything down to contact information for interviewed witnesses. Nothing really different from how they do it now, except that the computers are linked nationally through the FBI. Back then, they had to wait a day or two for a "kickback" from a distant office on a request for information.

      I'm in some databases, even though I've never been convicted or even arrested. I was the victim of a violent crime, and so I'm in there as a victim and witness. I've been fingerprinted for a job, and those records are on file. I'm not particularly upset about any of that: if I were alive fifty years ago, I'd have a file too, just not one that's as easily searched.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:57PM

        by sjames (2882) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:57PM (#88686) Journal

        It's not necessarily a matter of recidivism either. If a crime happens, they'll look at people with prior arrests for suspects. It doesn't matter that your arrest was in error before, they will now 'like' you for the new crime, increasing your chances of a second arrest for something you didn't do.

        It's the search-ability that is a big part of the problem. A mistaken arrest on record was no big deal when nobody would ever see it again. Now that it adversely affects employment and credit it must be addressed. Either by banning the searches by employers and banks, making it no longer searchable, or by purging arrests when they don't lead to a conviction.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:56PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:56PM (#88702)

        Think domestic problems, where the husband beats the wife, goes to jail, comes home, beats her again, goes to jail, etc.

        Good example, except it's biased and offsenive: approximately 50% of domestic violence is committed by women, and around 80% of that violence is by armed women against men who are not acting in a violent way.

        That is to say, 80% of assaults where the woman is the violent party involve weapons, the majority of which result in the man requiring medical attention.

        I wonder how many of those men end up being prosecuted for assaulting the woman? I know of at least two cases where this happened, one of which is my mother. (She even beat herself up a number of times, and then had the police arrest my father. This isn't "Oh, you're just working this out from what you heard," this is "The police prosecuted him and the judge worked out that she was a fucking mental bitch.")

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:16AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:16AM (#88748)

          Your numbers are over-simplified at best, and in some cases out right wrong.
          You are welcome to post links to actual evidence to support your claims.
          I suspect you won't because the data doesn't fall out the way you presented it.
          Anyone can read more a more accurate presentation of the numbers here. [wikipedia.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @11:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @11:57AM (#88850)

        Listen to the old Dragnet radio shows from the 50's: the LA cops, like those in any big city, were keeping huge municipal databases even then, first on books, then cards run through a computer.

        And before that, the database was housed in beat-cops' heads. I mean, how are you supposed to round up "the usual suspects," if you don't know who they are?

        Listen to any modern crime drama, and you'll hear them use "prior arrest, no charges filed" to imply guilt; especially to imply guilt in someone with political or gang connections. You're foolish if you think real cops aren't making the same inferences. Being in the previous arrest database makes a person easier to find and places a stain on his character, both of which increase his probability of re-arrest, completely separate from any actual culpability.

        There is substantial recidivism among the 1% of population who are actual criminals (both those found guilty and those who escaped conviction), and a database of people who have or may have committed similar crimes in the past is helpful in narrowing the suspects of a current crime. If that database contains a third of the population, it doesn't really narrow things down that much, does it? As with the "no fly list," law enforcement has managed to poison their own database by lowering the inclusion bar to trivial levels.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:39PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:39PM (#88659)

      Letting that many people go makes politicians look like they are soft on crime. To fix this they will make it a crime to be suspected of a crime, thus allowing them to reach 100% conviction rates!

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @11:03AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @11:03AM (#88833)

        > To fix this they will make it a crime to be suspected of a crime...

        Make? Combine this with automatic license plate readers in squad cars and every cop you encounter will "know" you're a criminal who got away.

  • (Score: 2) by SrLnclt on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:37PM

    by SrLnclt (1473) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:37PM (#88657)

    At what point will the data contain everyone in the 99%

    And what does the 99% have to do with the topic? Even if you have a luxury car for each day of the week you can have a one time event that puts you in handcuffs and your name on the list, just like the rest of us.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:59PM

      by sjames (2882) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:59PM (#88687) Journal

      It is a lot less likely though.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:23PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:23PM (#88692) Journal

      Even if you have a luxury car for each day of the week you can have a one time event that puts you in handcuffs and your name on the list, just like the rest of us.

      Possibility vs probability.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday September 03 2014, @06:08AM

      by davester666 (155) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @06:08AM (#88779)

      If you are a 1%'er, it greatly decreases the chances of an actual arrest taking place, and if one does, that those records will be removed, and even if those records are not removed, that they will not have a noticeable impact on your lifestyle.

    • (Score: 2) by Blackmoore on Wednesday September 03 2014, @02:19PM

      by Blackmoore (57) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @02:19PM (#88908) Journal
      I'm sorry - you are thinking of the top 5%. The 1% do not drive anywhere. the 1% have multiple billions of "worth"

      they paid for the Governor, and the Senator, and never ever get arrested or accused. They hardly even make the news - and why would they? they aren't celebrities, they're just rich.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:37PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @09:37PM (#88658)

    I disagree. They do care, and care a lot. Because those in law enforcement want to collect data on as many people and keep it for as long as they can.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:01PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:01PM (#88670) Journal

    At what point will the data contain everyone in the 99% At what point can we expect to corrupt the database with a overrun of data?

    Additional data will never corrupt the DB. This isn't a DB of who was convicted of a crime, it is a backdoor method of getting biometric data on every American. National ID cards are very unpopular, but being tough on crime is very popular -- so, apply the popular to get what the unpopular would provide.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by RamiK on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:10PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @10:10PM (#88673)

    The Grand Ayatollah always said the west is immoral and corrupt.

    Clearly, the FBI agrees.

    --
    compiling...
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:14PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:14PM (#88689) Journal
  • (Score: 1) by richtopia on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:33PM

    by richtopia (3160) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:33PM (#88694) Homepage Journal

    I have not been arrested ever. However, I am enrolled in Global Entry and my fingerprints are on file for that program, along with a picture.

    How much do you want to bet that these databases are shared?

    • (Score: 2) by demonlapin on Wednesday September 03 2014, @12:17AM

      by demonlapin (925) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @12:17AM (#88708) Journal
      Of course they are. I signed up for GE because I've been fingerprinted for a job. If you're going to have the downsides, you may as well have the upsides.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:21AM (#88750)

        If only the downside was limited to just having your prints on file.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by EQ on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:36PM

    by EQ (1716) on Tuesday September 02 2014, @11:36PM (#88695)

    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

    Rand seems prescient yet again. Objectivists everywhere are gloating.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:35AM (#88754)

      Objectivists everywhere are gloating

      Oblig xkcd [xkcd.com]
      If you don't have tooltips enabled, right-click the image and view the properties (alt-text).

      -- gewg_

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @08:09AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @08:09AM (#88807)

        And here's the non-mobile version of that link:

        http://xkcd.com/1049/ [xkcd.com]

        So much for the question of why a mobile version of a web site is a bad thing. [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @05:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 03 2014, @05:28PM (#88996)

          ...besides bloat?

          -- gewg_

  • (Score: 1) by pendorbound on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:52PM

    by pendorbound (2688) on Wednesday September 03 2014, @03:52PM (#88953) Homepage

    Does their database contain 77.7MM records, or is it actually covering 77.7MM individual persons? If someone reported the result of “SELECT COUNT(*) FROM ARRESTS;” or something, you’d get a number much larger than the actual number of people who have a record. The 77.7MM number is a pull quote from the paywalled WSJ article, so tough to find additional details. It would be an easy mistake for a non-tech writer to make.

    A lot of criminal records keeping systems track data in terms of arrests. They don’t group arrest events together for a single individual. The thinking is that adding a new arrest to an existing “person” record is something that could be done in error, would have seriously bad implications, and would be difficult to follow the trail back to resolve. Instead all of the information for the new arrest (name, address, etc.) is re-entered without any attempt to normalize it to any preexisting records.

    Generally anything like a rap sheet is run as a report based on a search for name (probably with some variety of “fuzzy” matching), DOB, and other attributes. It’s easier to fix the logic of a report later if an error is discovered than it would be to unlink an arrest that happened to be for a different John Smith.