Feds Check Credit Reports Without a Subpoena 290
An anonymous reader points out that, by using National Security Letters, the FBI and other agencies can legally pull your credit report. The letters have been used by the FBI (mostly) but in some cases by the CIA and Defense Department. From the article: "'These statutory tools may provide key leads for counterintelligence and counterterrorism investigations,' Whitman said. 'Because these are requests for information rather than court orders, a DOD request under the NSL statutes cannot be compelled absent court involvement.'" Recipients of the letters, banks and credit bureaus, usually hand over the requested information voluntarily. A posting at tothecenter.com quotes the Vice President on the use of the letters: "It's perfectly legitimate activity. There's nothing wrong or illegal with it. It doesn't violate people's civil rights... The Defense Department gets involved because we've got hundreds of bases inside the United States that are potential terrorist targets."
Well, Dick Cheney would know... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well, Dick Cheney would know... (Score:5, Funny)
Guys?... Gu-...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fixed that for ya.
Of course. (Score:3, Funny)
There, now it's out of the way, and we can mod down anybody else that says it. It's been explained so many times on
So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not like the government is going through my mail or listening to my phone calls...
OK, bad example.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they have more power than the government. When you apply for a car, they run your credit report. You apply for an apartment, they run a credit report. You apply for a job, they run a credit report. All of these companies that are running credit reports can use them against you. The Gov't can't.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
A government can arrest you, imprison you, and even kill you. Governments all around the world are waging wars, rounding people up, and torturing them. What business can do that?
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-- George Washington
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Halliburton.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shell [wikipedia.org], Coca Cola [wikipedia.org], Union Carbide [wikipedia.org], DeBeers [wikipedia.org], ExxonMobil [wikipedia.org]...
should I go on?
CokaCola (Score:3, Insightful)
Care to provide an example of Coca Cola rounding someone up and torturing him or her?
They don't have to, they pay government, the military, and paramilitary organizations to do the dirty work. As in Colombia, Coke sued over death squad claims [bbc.co.uk]. How about the Campaign to Hold Coca-Cola Accountable [indiaresource.org] in India. Google [google.com] has a directory of more unethical things Coka Cola has been accused of.
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I did, but in case you didn't click on the link, here's some text from the article:
what can business do? (Score:3, Informative)
A government can arrest you, imprison you, and even kill you. Governments all around the world are waging wars, rounding people up, and torturing them. What business can do that?
You mean like the government contractor Blackwater [blackwaterusa.com]? Or Coca [bbc.co.uk] Cola [google.com]? Or [bbc.co.uk] Exxon [google.com]?
Falcon
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, but you give them permission to those people.
Still, of the players in the Cavalcade Of Civil Rights Abuses we've been priviledged to be audience to over the past few years, this one definitely plays a bit part.
Re:credit reports (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, the company making a "pre-approved" offer hasn't actually seen your credit report. They simply ask the reporting agency to give them a list of names/addresses for people that meet a certain criteria. You give them permission to make the full inquiry when you return the application.
You can exclude yourself from the pre-screen lists at http://www.optoutprescreen.com/ [optoutprescreen.com]. I'm a bit concerned about the legitimacy of the site, but I've found multiple referrals to it from legitimate sources, including the FTC [ftc.gov]. If you aren't convinced, you can download the printed form from the site and snail-mail it to the three reporting agencies. The snail-mail method is required for permanent opt-out, anyway.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hope you have a bank account who's number is just one digit off from a terrorists. One mistyped number and you'll change your opinion.
MOD parent UP please (Score:4, Insightful)
As today, I would guess back then Nixon wanted the info to stop the terrorists and keep America safe...
Re: (Score:2)
As today, I would guess back then Nixon wanted the info to stop the terrorists and keep America safe...
Compared to Bush, Nixon was a flaming liberal ...
what liberal means (Score:5, Informative)
Clearly you don't understand what the word "liberal" means. I mean, Castro is very left wing: do you think he never spys on his subjects?
Hardly anyone uses the right mneaning for "liberal" today. A Liberal [wikipedia.org] used to be someone who stood for Liberty and Small government. They stressed the "importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, constitutional limitations of government, the protection of civil liberties, an economic policy with heavy emphasis on free markets". Today's liberals or neoliberals seem more like socialists with bigger government, bigger public ie government programs, and penalizing businesses.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
The difference is that they'll also break your kneecaps.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe because, contrary to recent efforts to make you think otherwise, the government isn't "like any other organization"?
Of course, those things the government can't do themselves, they just hire [blackwaterusa.com] contracted corporations [acxiom.com] to do for them.
Those require your authorization. (Score:2)
There are lots of circumstances where a company will ask for your authorization to pull your report. Renting, credit app, loan app, etc. But you should have authorized each of those.
If other people are pulling your report, that is a HUGE problem because your report has information about account numbers, balances and just about everything they'd need for "identity theft".
Not true. (Score:2)
Statements, not report. (Score:5, Informative)
Check the original article, not the title. The title says "credit report", but the original article says "banking and credit records", which includes a complete list of all money in and out, and who that money came from or goes to, which usually gives information about the types of things you are spending money on. This can reveal what type of magazines you buy, how much you drink, whether or not you're seeing a shrink, whether you're seeing medical specialists, what you pay for on the internet, etc... So yes, it is equivalent to going through your mail and listening to phone calls.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you need to submit your real name for these under penalty of perjury, or can they be used anonymously?
we've got hundreds of bases... (Score:5, Funny)
And we don't want those bases blown up by terrorists with bad credit.
Re:we've got hundreds of bases... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on down for our jihad financing special. Bad credit? No credit? You work, you jihad!
Absolutely stunning .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, every time I hear a legal opinion coming out of the White House, I'm forced to conclude that it, or something like it, has been struck down by the courts in the past. I don't believe there is any mechanism whereby the DoD can be pulling credit checks on citizens on the preteext that with so many bases, they need to protect them. This is crazy.
I'm glad my passport expired. I won't be travelling to your country any more -- your gestapo scares me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
During wartime, civil liberties always get pushed back. But now we've got an open-ended "war on terror" that's lasted for five years already, with no end in sight. And Bush & Co are pushing the envelope as far they can in the direction of rolling back 4th Amendment protections on unreasonable searches. They do it because they figure they can get away with it, and they probably can, unless the Congress or the Supreme Court suddenly acquires a spine.
Re:Absolutely stunning .... (Score:5, Informative)
I want to preface my comments by saying I am card carrying member of the ACLU, a Jeffersonian libritarian, and am no fan of this administration and its tactics. Furthermore, my comments are based on the fact that every example cited in the various press outlets has been a cleared individual (Aldrige Aimes and the Army chaplain at Gitmo). My comments do not to apply any cases that involve non-cleared citizens.
People involved in these investigations have clearances. As such, they have voluntarily signed away portions of their civil liberties related to wire tapping and regular background checks for counter intelligence purposes. If you have a clearance from US government, you have elected to restrict your civil liberties and rights to serve the country. Pulling your credit report is the least invasive action they can do without consulting the courts. At worst, they can revoke your clearance through an administrative procedure which has the net effect of a criminal conviction on your record.
As an aside, most US government clearances are issued through the DoD agency known as DISCO. Some agencies (e.g. Treasury, State, and Energy) have their clearance agencies, but most others use DISCO (e.g. Homeland Security, CIA, NSA). Since most clearances are administered by DoD, it then makes since that DoD would be the source of the most investigations into cleared people. All DISCO investigations are performed by the FBI.
While it may seem swarmy, everyone involved has elected to be placed under higher government scrutiny. Furthermore, as someone who has previously held a clearance, I can attest to the fact that you are advised at numerous points in the process that you are subject to a higher level of scrutiny. These are the types of procedures that are the first steps in identifying the Richard Hanseens and Aldridge Aimes in a world that legally operates under a stricter set of rules with potentially grave consequences for violation. Most importantly, no one forced these people into that world, they volunteered for it with full knowledge of the constraints.
Re:Absolutely stunning .... (Score:4, Interesting)
Really? As I read the ABC article, it said nothing about citizens who hold any clearance. It merely references people who show up in investigations.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't know which is correct, but I see nothing to indicate that all of the people being examined like this are government personnel who have clearances. If it was purely ongoing verification of people with clearances, fine. But, if it spills over into "hmmm, he spoke to a brown man on the corner, let's pull up his records", it's a bad thing. And, one which I believe would be completely illegal
I'm just not 100% sure that the articles seem to indicate it's limited to ongoing verification of people who hold security clearance. I interpret it to be "whoever becomes a 'person of interest'".
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Really? As I read the ABC article, it said nothing about citizens who hold any clearance. It merely references people who show up in investigations.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't know which is correct, but I see nothing to indicate that all of the people being examined like this are government personnel who have clearances. If it was purely ongoing verification of people with clearances, fine. But, if it spills over into "hmmm, he spoke to a brown man on the corner, let's pull up his records", it's a bad thing. And, one which I believe would be completely illegal
I'm just not 100% sure that the articles seem to indicate it's limited to ongoing verification of people who hold security clearance. I interpret it to be "whoever becomes a 'person of interest'".
Cheers
As I said in my preface, all of the specific examples in the articles I have seen were/are cleared individuals. Furthermore, the process described sounds identical to the initial stages an investigation to revoke a clearance. Finally, the article consistently uses the term counter-intelligence which generally means finding spies amongst the spooks. Hence, the reasoning for my comment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean most invasive without consulting the courts. The least invasive would be to do nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As much of a c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring for the moment that this particular program was not in fact operating under Clinton, I certainly wouldn't assume anything Clinton did was OK in any case. Given that you automatically brand those who disagree with you "ignorant left-wingers", I'm a bit surprised you consider Clinton the gold-standard of morality and/or legality.
Anyway, the Bush Administration has been in control for a little bit now, I'd think were past any transitional stage
fun with words (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that how they get around the privacy angle? Just rename it to an "information request", and somehow that makes the problem go away. Just like torture is "creative interrogation".
Re: (Score:2)
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That means the banks, financial institutions, etc. who are are asked to provide this information have the right to refuse, no? (IANAL, so I would welcome confirmation or clarification from someone who is). My wrath isn't directed at the government (this time)--it's with the financial institutions that think it's okay to give out my confidential data just because someone wit
Conspiracy theory (Score:4, Insightful)
The analysis over at The Volokh Conspiracy [volokh.com] seemed to make sense. In particular "...instead of just informally requesting information in a context that would make clear the request is voluntary, the DoD and CIA seem to be issuing their requests using letters that look a lot like "real" National Security Letters. If that's right, the government would know that the letters have no legal effect, but they would be written so as to try to trick the recipients into thinking that they do."
This looks like more bending of the current administration's penchant for the rules to the breaking point (or past), using the excuse of a drastic threat to society. While I'm slightly sympathetic to such for dire threats, there is no evidence of this being for the unimaginably rare (dinosaur killer asteroid heading for earth) or for even the horrifically unthinkable (better than 50-50 chance of a million plus deaths). Instead, it's an attempt to covertly and permanently expand domestic intelligence powers when the legislature has refused to endorse such expansion.
Everyone should remember: "defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic" can include defending against yourself and your own darker impulses, and against any of lesser honor who may come to serve after you.
Credit *Records* not *Reports* (Score:2, Interesting)
"from the thanks-Patriot-Act dept" (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be silly for the government not to exercise that same power against potential terrorists as long as the power was legal.
So don't thank PATRIOT, thank precedent set by the older drug-fighting legislation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Notice a pattern here, citizen?
Oh, you mean the unconstitutional illegal-search-and-seizure RICO redefinition dreamed up by Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Even though it is not a popular piece of legislation (especially here), I have read through the PATRIOT act and agree with a great majority of it. From a legal perspective it is applying powers that the Government already has to a new type of criminal. In the days following 9/11 it was the right thing to do.
Many of the more abusive powers written into the legislation have been numbed down or even removed.
Police State (Score:2)
Reminds me of famous Nixon quote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two Questions... (Score:4, Insightful)
I have two questions:
When I think about it, everything in my credit report is the result of a public transaction. While I believe credit reports are being used inappropriately by employers, etc... I can't see how anyone believes this information to be private. In fact, most corporations who report to credit reporting agencies publicize this fact because they believe it deters fraud.
Now, whether or not the credit reporting agencies should be gathering this information, and how society depends on it, are a whole different matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you can track everybody's purchases very quickly and cheaply, and the actions performed in the searching will not bring attention to the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What gives you that idea? Each transaction made between myself and some business or financial institution is a private transaction unless we both agree otherwise. The nature of the data provided by credit card companies to data collection agencies is spelled out in my card agreement and it is limited to data useful in determining my creditworthiness. There is no place in that agreement that allows them to release
Re: (Score:2)
I think the larger philosophical debate is should the government actively track citizens engaged in completely legal activities without some type of oversight.
I agree about the oversight. And no, I don't think they should be able to view individual transactions. As an engineer, I have, as part of my profession, many of the things found in Ted Kaczinski's cabin. At least I have a believable alibi for my possessions. But what about the tinkerer buying batteries in bulk, or timing circuits, or wiring
Accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I also know someone who has the exact same name as someone else with just a one digit difference in SSNs. Bad info about this other stranger shows up on his credit report every few years. The credit agencies refuse to fix the data problems themselves.
So the last thing I want is the federal government flagging me as a potential terrorist because of some type-o that no one is willing to fix. Not only should these queries require court oversight, but they should be made directly to the institutions where the accounts are held so they're very specific and more likely accurate.
Re: (Score:2)
reasonability (Score:2, Informative)
Situations like these are not al
This is why I hit the roof (Score:2)
They are simply not accurrate. Example 1, about 10 years ago I moved and applied for a new drivers license. A person with the same name popped up with a warrant. Good thing he was 5ft 6in tall at 140 lbs and I am 6ft 1inch tall and 210 lbs. Otherwise I might have spent a night in jail.
Example 2, the social security office has some inaccurrate information on me. I recently started applying for
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
US Consitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. (Score:2)
Or, look at it this way: If the government needs a subpoena to look at my credit report than why the heck is everyone else allowed to look at it whenever they want?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:US Consitution - lets get Bushes (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have nothting to fear ... (Score:2)
Let's check the Documentation.... (Score:3, Insightful)
2) Amendments to Federal Constitution. Don't see it as an enumerated, delegated power.
So, WHY is the Federal Government wasting OUR VALUABLE TAX DOLLARS on things not explicitly delegated to them?
Um... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Delivering the mail. Don't see that as an enumerated, delegated power in the text of the Constitution or its amendments.
- Building prisons. Don't see that as an enumerated, delegated power in the text of the Constitution or its amendments.
- Establishing and operating the U.S. Coast Guard. Don't see that as an enumerated, delegated power in the text of the Constitution o
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing New with NSLs (Score:3, Informative)
Hmph. (Score:3, Interesting)
In the only example given in the article of the successful use of this technique, Aldrich Ames, he was under careful surveillance by the FBI, and well known to be living beyond his stated income. There should have been no difficulty obtaining a search warrant as described in that constitution thing that law enforcement officials seem to find so inconvenient. And the banks and credit companies should EXPECT and DEMAND that law enforcement officials provide this search warrant as standard process, as much as most individuals would expect and demand this before letting police read ones private love letters.
The Bill of Rights loses its power if all the major corporations just voluntarily ignore it on behalf of their customers.
Not a rights violation or unconstitutional (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't own your account information with your bank unless your bank explicitly tells you they don't share it with anyone - but they won't, because they regularly share this info with law enforcement.
If I were, for some wierd reason, sit across the street from you and record each day when you leave and when you return, I could give the info to anyone and the government would not need a warrent to use it in court. Observing someone's behavior in either commercial or otherwise public transactions is legitemate.
Do you think the IRS needs a warrent to go after you for a fraudulent tax form - just to see the tax form?
Let 'm have at it. (Score:2)
Thanks guys! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Security (Score:3, Interesting)
The system could build up dynamic biometric profiles of people based on the way they stand, how they move, how many times they shake it out afterwards, whether they hum or not, the kinds of trace chemicals in their urine, etc.
Hey, and think of all the drug dealers t
So really... (Score:3, Funny)
Needs to go Further (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's apply the same logic to other threats to our armed forces. For example: speeding on our nations highways. There are almost 2 million military personell in this country, and they're exposed to risks on our highways just like the rest of us. Statistically, on average each of us has about a 1 in 10,000 risk of being killed each year in an auto accident. That would mean that just since 9/11, probably over 1000 of our troops have been killed in accidents, not to mention thousands more serious casualties. This is a bigger loss to our military than almost any conceivable terrorist threat to our military bases would be, and about 1/3 as much as we've lost in Iraq.
Now, we can presume that most accidents involve excessive speeds. Clearly, to mitigate this huge drain on the nation's defenses, we must fight speeding. I say that it's high time that we took advantage of the assets we have to cut down on this threat. We should task the Air Force to use their fleet of unmanned drones to patroll the skies over our highways. With the advanced imaging technology, they should be able to track and evaluate nearly every vehicle on our major freeways. Once people start getting tickets with a NORAD return address nearly every time they violate the law, they're going to start thinking twice about putting our troops at risk on our roadways. It would be a huge tragedy if we as a nation are unwilling or unable to use every tool at our disposal to protect our troops.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The key flaw in your argument is that accidents are ACCIDENT'S.
Apart from the vague possibility of a meteorite hitting the car, there's pretty much no such thing as a car accident. If someone makes a choice to carry out a particular act and they know (or should know) that that act may endanger other people, the results are not "accidental". At best, you could term it negligence.
PS. Surplus apostrophe.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? The end result is what matters: thousands of US troops killed by speeding drivers in their own homeland in the past few decades, vs. ~100 troops killed by terrorists inside this country. The troops need to start protecting themselves from the threats that face them on their own soil. In fact, we should not just rely on an air war. Our ground-based forces should be setting up random checkpoints to screen for drunks and other hazardous d
Cheney's Law (Score:5, Informative)
I just watched Sen Feinstein (D-CA) telling the (probably empty, except the C-SPAN camera) Senate floor about how Chief Inqusitor^W^WAttorney General Gonzales has been firing US Attorneys in various districts, without any just cause (except "just 'cause I say so"), replacing them with "interim" Attorneys to last the rest of Bush's administration, avoiding the required Senate confirmation, to determine the outcomes of specific cases in their calendars. Like the "recess appointments" of Bush admin hacks like UN bomber^WAmbassador John Bolton and others. A "loophole" designed into the Patriot Act II (With a Vengance) voted in by the Republican Congress in 2006, which threw away the old "120 days maximum" for "interim" Attorney appointments, in favor of... as long as the Attorney General pleases, with whoever he pleases, whenever he pleases. Pleases himself, that is, not people interested in justice or Constitutional rule.
And this morning I read how Republicans want courts martial to try civilians [chron.com]. I expect they'll lock up trying war profiteers like Halliburton, find them "not guilty/liable", and use our Constitution's "no double jeopardy" rules to exclude real courts from trying them and exposing the evidence to shareholders and citizens. Then I won't be surprised when Bush/Cheney/Gonzales find excuses to apply military courts all over the globe. From US occupations like Afghanistan and Iraq, to battlegrounds in other countries like probably Iran and Syria, to anarchies where they're bombing like Somalia. Then widening to other Terror War territories, wherever they can find them. All in defiance of international laws, US treaties, and our Constitution itself, which is universal, yielding only in the face of sovereign foreign jurisdiction.
After all, Cheney/Gonzales/Bush don't even have any use for the required FISA [wikipedia.org] court that bends over backwards to grant warrants, even after the fact, when spying on Americans. Why shouldn't this gang of "Conservatives" use the laws they've passed the past 6 years with their wholly-owned Congressional subsidiary to do whatever they want, regardless of how tyrannical?
After all, there's no law against Cheney lying to us on TV talk shows - as far as Cheney cares, anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Last I checked, juries determined the outcome of cases, and judges determined the outcome of appeals.
Also, changing a legislative loophole is in the purview of the legislature. The consent of US district attorneys is provided for by statute, not by Constitutional mandate, and if the law says that the executive branch can make these nominations without Senate approval, then they can:
Sure, why not? They OUGHT to be able to... (Score:2)
Now, if my credit score is common knowledge, and the government CAN'T get to it, there's something wrong.
The more direct question about why they'd care about my credit score- I can't imagine what it would help them with...all the guns I run are
Two things (Score:2)
For folks saying "big deal":
This is the problem. This what makes it different from legal inquiries of your credit record by the government.
What are they really looking for? (Score:2)
So, if terrorists are not their real target, who is? What are they looking for? What do they really want to
The Real Privacy Violation (Score:5, Insightful)
You can opt-out of pre-screen credit offers (Score:3, Informative)
Does it affect my credit score? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The surprising thing... (Score:2)
Almost anyone can check on anyone's credit report. All you have to do is contact one of the three credit reporting companies and ask. They'll name a price.
I cant imagine anyone being surprised that government agencies use commercially available data. It's like being surprised that the D.A. has a Lexis-Nexis subscription, or reads Groklaw (ok, that might be surprising), or reads the newspaper. Once we were aware that credit checks were being factored into job interviews it should hav
Privacy (Score:2, Insightful)
Freedom has a price! (Score:2)
...hand over the requested information voluntarily (Score:2, Interesting)
Bush == Nixon
Cheney == Agnew
Iraq == Vietnam
2007 == 1974
Oil == Oil
Hard figuring out which is more bizarre (Score:2)
An administration that thinks they're above the law and justifies any indignity by simply declaring anything they want to do legal and constitutional? Or the right wing apologists sticking up for them? These are the same people who used to threatened revolution over the assault rifle ban and background checks for buying handguns. They'll fight to the death to be able to buy a gun at a flea market, but it's okay for the military and government check their credit report at will, bug phone calls without a
Legitimate? (Score:2)
I would have called it "cromulent".
Re:Sanity checks (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, they do sanity check things. The trouble is, an organization like a government (or a corporation, even) does not operate with the same moral concepts as individual humans. (Should they? Many think so - but the point is that they don't.) A government's view of the country is that in order to do their job better, they need more control. Nearly any power-vested entity has a similar outlook. (That sounds like a rant, I don't mean it to.)
Our moral outlook is that our privacy is important to us. A government's fear-based outlook is that our "private" lives could potentially hide threats to their wellbeing, or to "society" in general. A corporation's perspective is that the most important thing to do is Whatever Makes More Money for Shareholders. This is why "Don't get caught" seems to be more of a governing rule for many non-individuals.
To them, we are a statistic -- 1 of 298 million. If 1% of your constituents (or customers) gets royally screwed by the system, who cares? Mistakes, accidents, etc harm more than that, and besides -- how many of that group actually deserved such screwing?
As individuals, the potential screw-ees, we obviously care a lot more. We see the marginalization of rights, "security theater", and inconveniences which make our individual lives harder, with little noticeable increase in safety, satisfaction, or other intangibles which we value. We see how it impacts US.
For example: Whenever I walk into many stores (e.g., Best Buy, Fry's, Costco), there are security people (or even employees) monitoring the exits, assuming that I could be the next shoplifter. So, they want me to show receipts, walk through a detector, etc. Great - I am not having to prove that I'm not a thief, every time I leave a store. From their perspective, it reduces shoplifting by X%, and thereby reducing their losses and increasing profits -- it's hard to see the business sense in NOT doing it (especially when all your competitors are too).
Similarly, when we go to the airport, we're herded as cattle, and need to produce ID and other documentation at many stages, all because it's viewed as "making travel more secure". Honestly, I imagine it might
So yes -- rest assured that many people have "sanity-checked" the practices and systems by which the government operates. They just are operating with different goals and values, so their sanity checks will return different values than yours or mine.
Re: (Score:2)
A 10-year old unverified statement is just not the same as a group's mission statement, which is:
And BTW: