Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday February 08 2017, @05:21PM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The FBI's Rap Back program is quietly transforming the way employers conduct background checks. While routine background checks provide employers with a one-time "snapshot" of their employee's past criminal history, employers enrolled in federal and state Rap Back programs receive ongoing, real-time notifications and updates about their employees' run-ins with law enforcement, including arrests at protests and charges that do not end up in convictions. ("Rap" is an acronym for Record of Arrest and Prosecution; "Back" is short for background.) Testifying before Congress about the program in 2015, FBI Director James Comey explained some limits of regular background checks: "People are clean when they first go in, then they get in trouble five years down the road [and] never tell the daycare about this."

A majority of states already have their own databases that they use for background checks and have accessed in-state Rap Back programs since at least 2007; states and agencies now partnering with the federal government will be entering their data into the FBI's Next Generation Identification (NGI) database. The NGI database, widely considered to be the world's largest biometric database, allows federal and state agencies to search more than 70 million civil fingerprints submitted for background checks alongside over 50 million prints submitted for criminal purposes. In July 2015, Utah became the first state to join the federal Rap Back program. Last April, aviation workers at Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport and Boston Logan International Airport began participating in a federal Rap Back pilot program for aviation employees. Two weeks ago, Texas submitted its first request to the federal criminal Rap Back system.

Rap Back has been advertised by the FBI as an effort to target individuals in "positions of trust," such as those who work with children, the elderly, and the disabled. According to a Rap Back spokesperson, however, there are no formal limits as to "which populations of individuals can be enrolled in the Rap Back Service." Civil liberties advocates fear that under Trump's administration the program will grow with serious consequences for employee privacy, accuracy of records, and fair employment practices.

Rap Back Privacy Impact Assessment

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
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: 2) by linkdude64 on Thursday February 09 2017, @08:12PM

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Thursday February 09 2017, @08:12PM (#465223)

    "False dichotomy. You seem to have created an alternative definition"

    You are 0%-F-on-your-English-midterm incorrect, and that is as meaningfully as I can put it.

    freedom
    [free-duh m]
    noun
    2.
    exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

    society
    [suh-sahy-i-tee]

    noun, plural societies.
    1.
    an organized[emphasis mine] group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

    The definition of Freedom is having no boundaries, the definition of society is living within boundaries - whether you accept these definitions or not is irrelevant. That is why they are called definitions.

    It being a Law that we are required to treat people equally is a restriction on the restriction of Freedom. "Sophistry!" You cry? Law is how I would respond - and it is a Good law! Still, Law is a restriction of Freedom and Society requires Law. This was my statement. This is what you disagreed with so fervently, and what other fools flocked to support you in contesting. The rest of your comment is simply ill-conceived. "a society without freedom is an uncivilized society" A Society without Freedom, and you typed that with not a hint of irony?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 09 2017, @10:31PM

    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday February 09 2017, @10:31PM (#465287)

    You are 0%-F-on-your-English-midterm incorrect, and that is as meaningfully as I can put it.

    The fact of the matter is that there are different kinds of freedom (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.), so when you say "We cannot have both Freedom and Society." right after saying that secret terrorist watch lists are an "unfortunate reality", you're going to look like an authoritarian to a number of people. No amount of cherrypicking definition games will change that.

    whether you accept these definitions or not is irrelevant.

    I think it's time for you to accept that a single word can have multiple meanings and that a phrase can be interpreted differently depending on the context it's used in. I have zero interest in playing your disingenuous games.

    Here's what you said: "Yes, those are counter to freedom, and an unfortunate reality - but unfortunately the only solution would be to step back our technology to an age where surveillance was not possible. We cannot have both Freedom and Society. Are you advocating we abandon civilization in the name of Freedom? Or are you dealing in absolutes to make a petty and unrealistic argument based on a utopian standard?" So what does all of that mean, exactly? Are you supporting secret terrorist watch lists there? It looks an awful lot like a false dichotomy to me, but is it? Why are you asking him if he wants to abandon all of civilization in the name of "freedom" (which you conveniently picked an extremely broad definition of) when you quoted something about secret terrorist watch lists? It seems like you started talking extremely broadly (if your reply to me can be believed) instead of speaking specifically about the matter at hand.

    At best, if you were indeed using those definitions of "freedom" and "society", then it was just a useless observation thrown into your post that could easily be confused as meaning something else entirely.

    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Friday February 10 2017, @08:22PM

      by linkdude64 (5482) on Friday February 10 2017, @08:22PM (#465580)

      "look authoritarian to a number of people. Cherrypicking"

      And who gets to choose what the definiton of "authoritarian" is in the context of this conversation? I hope you see the irony.

      What you call "cherrypicking" in regards to conversation, is paralled by what I call "mental masturbation" on Thexalon's part in regards to this specific debate. A governed technological society that is secret-surveillance free would, at the very minimum, require two things: 100% libre software that has no vulnerabilites and, ultimately, people that have no desire for greater power. Am I "authoritarian" for acknowledging that centrally-controlled secret surveillance has been occuring as long as there has been society? Troll, at the very least, apparently. When a stranger comes to visit the isolated tribal village, the chieftain (authoritarian), if he and his people are to survive much longer, will post a watch. "Infringement! Profiling! Racist! No representation!" The truest insult is what my response to such types of comments is: "Useless."

      "It seems like you started talking extremely broadly instead of speaking specifically about the matter at hand."

      As I see it - please submit corrections - my statement applies both broadly, and specifically, to the exact topic at hand. The dismissal of historical perspective in Thexalon's formation of his opinion is what I see, specifically, as the problem. The problem which leads to the symptom of his argument that secret surveillance "needs to go" as it will never "go" so long as we have society. I speak in extremes because that is ultimately the result. Just as eco-systems are connected in a web, so are technologies - for better and for worse. If you truly want a "surveillance free existence for everyone", how much are you willing to sacrifice, is the question that I posed. If you look at history, you will find that you would have to sacrifice literally everything down to society itself until you reach a point where things are "surveillance free." Is it still such a false dichotomy?

      • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday February 10 2017, @10:27PM

        by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Friday February 10 2017, @10:27PM (#465609)

        I hope you see the irony.

        I do not. No matter how many definition games are played, they're not ironic, relevant, or interesting.

        A governed technological society that is secret-surveillance free

        Is that what he's arguing for, or is he just arguing against specific abuses of power? Secret terrorist watch lists that you can be added to without due process and that restrict what you're able to do are a terrible idea and a violation of the Constitution. I'm just trying to find the part where he says that spies shouldn't exist whatsoever, or something similar. The problem isn't the mere existence of surveillance, but that much of the surveillance the government is doing violates basic human rights and the highest law of the land.

        • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday February 11 2017, @09:28AM

          by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday February 11 2017, @09:28AM (#465727)

          "they're not ironic, relevant, or interesting."

          Word selection and usage reveals the assumptions we make in conversation, whether you value that or not. Clearly, you do not - moving right along.

          "Is that what he's arguing for, or is he just arguing against specific abuses of power?"

          He is arguing against secret watch lists (and presumably, other societal/governmental violations of human rights), but I submit that this is like arguing for the creation of a coin with only one side.

          "much of the surveillance the government is doing violates basic human rights."

          The very existence of society itself does as well, history has proven. Or can you name a single advanced society which did not violate "basic human rights" for some people? I wager you cannot. This is my point. Society cannot be perfect, yet you argue that it should be by way of saying, "Society shouldn't violate our rights/secretly watch people!" which would require perfection, and then you to call my "word games" useless. The irony is becoming irritable.

          I wish it didn't need to happen, and don't argue that it violates the Constitution, I simply argue that the practice has always happened in the United States at some level (electronically, beginning in the 1920s) and that the practice is here to stay - an "unfortunate reality" - and that the practice will exist at large far beyond the lifetime of this country. If you dispute that, I have nothing else to say. If I am "authortarian" for saying so, then so be it.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Saturday February 11 2017, @08:58PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Saturday February 11 2017, @08:58PM (#465884)

            Word selection and usage reveals the assumptions we make in conversation

            It seems you've realized it.

            He is arguing against secret watch lists (and presumably, other societal/governmental violations of human rights), but I submit that this is like arguing for the creation of a coin with only one side.

            So you don't think it's going to go away completely. But the question is whether or not we can reduce the scope of the problem. Many of society's problems that have been solved or at least greatly reduced would have remained if people just threw their hands up and gave up.

            The very existence of society itself does as well, history has proven.

            In the instances where it actually does do so, yes, and this conversation is supposed to be about one such instance. Of course, even if you had anarchy, there's still a possibility of someone violating your rights. The existence of such a possibility is not interesting.

            You seem to like pointing out the obvious as if it's profound and insightful. Wow, there's a possibility that your rights could be violated. Amazing!

            Society shouldn't violate our rights/secretly watch people!"

            No one said that they can't secretly watch people, but if they do so, they must follow the Constitution. Another problem is that these lists (such as the no-fly list) actually punish people without due process.

            which would require perfection

            That doesn't follow. Prove it. How would solving one issue require all-around perfection? Would starvation cease to exist without unconstitutional surveillance? Would other problems cease to exist? If not, then society would be far from perfect. You also don't seem to understand that we can also greatly reduce the problem and not necessarily solve it 100%.

            And you seem to be using the nirvana fallacy here. No one mentioned anything about perfection, yet you continuously assert without evidence that fixing certain problems would require society to be absolutely perfect.

            The irony is becoming irritable.

            Enough of this "irony" nonsense. Your sense is irony is completely broken. That's extremely ironic!

            If I am "authortarian" for saying so, then so be it.

            Defeatists are almost as bad, being useful idiots and all. How ironical! How ironical!

            Your obsession with perfection is a waste of time.

            • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday February 11 2017, @10:50PM

              by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday February 11 2017, @10:50PM (#465926)

              "But the question is whether or not we can reduce the scope of the problem."

              Not meaningfully. It is already not necessary for the US to directly or indirectly spy on citizens. They can simply request information from Telecoms that are already stored for advertising purposes. "Okay, so pass a law banning govt. and telecoms from talking." Okay, now they will just start asking Five Eyes for the data that they've collected. If you disagree with this reality, you disagree.

              "You seem to like pointing out the obvious as if it's profound and insightful."

              I am only stating the obvious because I am under the impression that you do not already factor in those facts into your arguments.

              "Would starvation cease to exist without unconstitutional surveillance?"

              Funny question, because the answer is probably yes. I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, the root of all societal demand - at any level - for surveillance, whether it is constitutional or not, is the human desire for the illusion of security. Keeping an eye on a potential threat is a self preservation instinct. I am sure you would agree to this obvious statement.

              So, for the demand for surveillance to disappear (as any surveillance will eventually become "unconstitutional"), the only thing that could lead to that would be the removal, or great reduction, of our instinctual desire for tribal security, which would probably unify the planet and end economic wars, which are really what cause starvation.

              So I really do see the answer as a plausible "yes", unless you somehow believe an "effect" can be removed without nullifying its original "cause" which is ironically what hoping for a meaningful reduction in surveillance at this point in time and technology seems to suggest.

              "useful idiots"

              Better than a useless one, I would say. Are you jealous?

              • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:45AM

                by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Sunday February 12 2017, @01:45AM (#465950)

                Not meaningfully. It is already not necessary for the US to directly or indirectly spy on citizens. They can simply request information from Telecoms that are already stored for advertising purposes. "Okay, so pass a law banning govt. and telecoms from talking." Okay, now they will just start asking Five Eyes for the data that they've collected.

                It doesn't matter who they ask, because it's unconstitutional anyway. The only question is how to force them to follow the Constitution.

                Can we meaningfully stop the government from taking our guns?

                If you disagree with this reality, you disagree.

                Another brilliant observation.

                I am only stating the obvious because I am under the impression that you do not already factor in those facts into your arguments.

                You seem to be under many incorrect impressions.

                Most of your arguments seem to boil down to you saying that it's impossible to fix or mitigate a problem while not providing any evidence that it's actually impossible outside of saying that the problem has persisted for a very long time. Plenty of problems that persisted for a long time were eventually fixed or at least mitigated, including slavery and murder. There are also underlying causes of racism, but we've still managed to reduce the problem in a lot of places.

                I have no idea if we will be able to fix these problems, but there is a difference between saying 'I don't know what will happen in the future.' and 'It's impossible.'

                So, for the demand for surveillance to disappear (as any surveillance will eventually become "unconstitutional")

                Not sure why you put "unconstitutional" in quotes. I also don't see any inherent reason that any surveillance will eventually become unconstitutional. If the government gets a valid warrant to conduct specific surveillance upon a specific person, will that specific act of surveillance eventually become unconstitutional? Because there are plenty of examples where that hasn't happened, so clearly it's possible to have constitutional surveillance. We have to reduce instances where the government violates the Constitution.

                the only thing that could lead to that would be the removal, or great reduction, of our instinctual desire for tribal security

                Wow!

                Better than a useless one, I would say. Are you jealous?

                At least a useless idiot has principles and the willingness to act on them. How ironic.

                • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:56PM

                  by linkdude64 (5482) on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:56PM (#466201)

                  "The only question is how to force them to follow the Constitution."

                  I'll throw a "Brilliant observation" back at you, because you are so fond of them.

                  "Can we meaningfully stop the government from taking our guns?"

                  Your comparison very obviously suffers from the same conflict that file sharing vs. digital restriction management does.

                  "There is a difference between saying 'I don't know what will happen in the future.' and 'It's impossible.'"

                  I can't deny this is a correct statement; I do not actually know if human nature will change in the future, I only have the past to go from.

                  "Not sure why you put "unconstitutional" in quotes."

                  That was only a technicality because I was referring exclusively to future societies where people are "guaranteed" some right to privacy, and because their social contracts may not be referred to as Constitutions.

                  "I also don't see any inherent reason that any surveillance will eventually become unconstitutional. "

                  Please let me re-phrase your statement to check if I am interpreting it correctly. This how I read it: "I don't see any inherent reason that people and governments will eventually abuse their power if given it."

                  If it were inherent that governments always follow their own laws, and if it were impossible for there to be a two-class court system (poor and famous/political), and if it were impossible for people to become corrupt, you would be 100% right.

                  "At least a useless idiot has principles and the willingness to act on them"

                  Uselessly, that is. If only your irony were truly ferrous and could be profitably mined, us useful idiots will need lots of re-bar when we're building the Wall.

                  • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Monday February 13 2017, @12:08AM

                    by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Monday February 13 2017, @12:08AM (#466367)

                    Your comparison very obviously suffers from the same conflict that file sharing vs. digital restriction management does.

                    But can we?

                    This how I read it: "I don't see any inherent reason that people and governments will eventually abuse their power if given it."

                    Clearly you're not interpreting it correctly. I was referring to individual instances of surveillance. If it's possible to have constitutional surveillance, then it's clearly not all-or-nothing. We can't stop all abuses, but I see absolutely no reason why we can't reduce them, perhaps even substantially.

                    Uselessly, that is.

                    Not always, no. At least there is a possibility of change. You, however, will never accomplish anything because you do not try and instead simply declare change as impossible. You're only useful to those in power, and are a detriment to people who actually desire freedom. Congratulations on being "useful", then.

                    • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:06PM

                      by linkdude64 (5482) on Tuesday February 14 2017, @07:06PM (#467059)

                      "But can we?"

                      Not as I see it, no. Even were they to take physical guns from willing lemmings, 3D printed guns and CAD files for gun parts are already a thing, and are already widely distributed in the channels which would utilize them without hesitation.

                      "I see absolutely no reason why we can't reduce them, perhaps even substantially."

                      "correctly"

                      Differently. I finally understand that you're talking specifically about reduction in enforcement resulting from said surveillance, and not reduction in surveillance itself, which is what I'm talking about.

                      "Secret Watch lists" are what I'm saying will never go away, not "secret watch lists that are so exclusive .000001% of the populace is ever impeded by them." Which are the no-fly lists and the like. Those could go away completely very easily, by tying enforcement's hands, but these are not massive lists in the first place.

                      The only way to make those enforcement lists even more specific (increasing "perceived" freedom) would be to enable govt to spy even more heavily on the lists' potential members - field agents following them and their relatives home, for instance, to gather more evidence, rather than simply using names, browsing history, or travel records to form a profile. That would be self-defeating, however. I do wonder if you have ever previously considered that a system automatically placing people on a no-fly list and getting it clearly wrong is actually a sign that less surveillance than necessary to do a "good job" is taking place?

                      Yes, there are mistakes where a clearly patriotic couple named their baby "Osama 'Death To America' bin Laden" and so a 2 year old ends up on the list, but they are around 5ppm errors which is half-decent for such a huge bureaucracy IMO. To expect much more from government is optimistic, without total abolishment of their ability to enforce, I mean. Certainly would be difficult to legislate - "You have to know, without investigating, whether or not you have sufficient basis for a warrant."

                      "Congratulations on being "useful", then."

                      Thank you. Moving on with my life in the face of what is, to my mind, an undeniable truth, is worthy of congratulations. For a short while I was very concerned with mass surveillance. I have found a happy medium.