FBI to have UK Data ?

[Dark Atheist]

all i can say is bugger off!!!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/15/world.ukcrime

 

[mlakrid]

all i can say is bugger off!!!!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jan/15/world.ukcrime

My response would be: if you are a law abiding citizen, why would you care?

Just my $.02...

Mike A!

 

[Dark Atheist]

everything is open to abuse

 

[LordOfLA]

The USA doesn't need my data. The USA should not have access to UK databases while mis-using its existing resources.

 

[falconguard]

Except for denying Amy Winehouse a passport, how is this really pertinent to us? This is rather perplexing, because would'nt police organizations cooperate anyway? Bugger off, indeed.

 

[mlakrid]

The USA doesn't need my data. The USA should not have access to UK databases while mis-using its existing resources.

So what you're saying is its fine to give it to everyone else in the Biometric alliance...

NZ, Australia etc.. but not the U.S.?

If you ever want a truely safe world, then you should express the reason(s) why you think the U.S. as a sole entity shouldn't have it or get off the moral high horse which you are standing on, and accept the fact that this is the way to make it safer for society as a whole...

ANY data can be misused, it doesn't have to be the US...

Mike A!

 

[mlakrid]

Except for denying Amy Winehouse a passport, how is this really pertinent to us? This is rather perplexing, because would'nt police organizations cooperate anyway? Bugger off, indeed.

Actually no they wouldn't, there is currently no way for police forces to share data which is why they are trying to stand up this system in the first place...

I think the biggest thing to note is the fact that the data will not be shared unless you as a profile fit one of the three categories...

It is easy to scream that your rights will be violated... ask your parents and grandparents... this same type of rhetoric was spewed long ago when people were forced to get ID cards...

Its 2008 people... it is not like everyone is getting a barcode tatooed in their backs...

Mike A!

 

[falconguard]

If we wan't to be part of the Biometric alliance, we should petition to join it, not just demand data from someone else. The seems @$$ backwards to me. We need to get our !@#% together over here for that database to be any use to us.

So ...wouldn't that be a better program to initiate, on a fundamentally obvious level?

By the way my grandfather had his rights violated as an American, internment camps. This in itself makes him really leery of a need to identify anything other than as an American. Funny how that works out.

 

[Dark Atheist]

they share data by faxing the finger prints, that's all they share atm, my point like lords is bugger off to all, this "war on terror" is an excuse they are using to push all these 1984 measures through, i have no issue with information being shared but why do they need full access?

Why do they need to know your iris pattern, wouldn't photo or dna be good enough? its like the ID cards they are trying to bring in over here in the UK, OK good idea, but why biometric data? simple DNA info would be fine, why they need blood hair height and iris info

 

[falconguard]

Carpo Iris are also like fingerprints, their data in unique. So I can see that as a possible means of verification. If we want to be part of the Biometirc alliance we should join it, intead of having this just foisted over.

 

[Dark Atheist]

yes but biometrics would also have your finger prints on it, so why you need both ? also to make my point clear if they mean its only people who have been convicted of a crime will be in this database and that's all they will have access to then fine, but if its a case of the whole population then no im not fine with it.

Over here in the UK if you are arrested you have a DNA sample taken, so your automatically on there, but if you are not charged or convicted your information stays on there although it should be removed, and the procedure for doing that is long and sometimes takes years and many different government departments, what about those people, they shouldn't be on there but are.

As i said above everything is open to abuse and misuse, and the UK government has lost enough information on its subjects in the last few months, and that is bad enough, what if this info is lost in another country? A little sorry won't cut it

 

[mlakrid]

OK,

Take a step away from the keyboard (only far enough that you can stilll read this)

Now, pretend you are from Pakistan...

Now, pretend you know your dad was an extreme Islamic Isolationist...

NOW you can worry, as your data would be shared... I think you are missing the point to your own post Carpo... each countries database would remain in the sole control of the country which originated the data, what the FBI is asking for is all the data on the people which match the predetermined three sets of data...

PLEASE... I BEG YOU... TELL ME WHAT ON EARTH IS WRONG WITH THAT?

*deep breath*

Ok Im better now...

Back to your regularly scheduled forum replies...

Mike A!

 

[Petros]

The older I get and the more history I read, the less this stuff seems to matter. Historically, the only thing that has ever made a difference in politics is who has the strongest armed force.

I'm all against governments obtaining my private data, but what can you do? In the world of top-tier politics, all roads lead to greater government control; the "essential liberty for a little safety" quote just annoys me now whenever it's thrown around by people who don't even know what "essential" means. People brandish that phrase about as if giving up any liberties for safety means that you deserve neither. That's just untrue. Everyone has to give up freedom for safety, and if private data is part of it, so be it. Any victim of identity theft will tell you that individuals with your private data do a lot more harm than governments (except when their data is stolen from the government!).

Private data held by investigative offices is not essential, and if a person thinks it is, that's just their opinion. While there is plenty of room to direct the abuse toward an individual or a small group, the possibility of total and eternal oppressive Orwellian control of the world's populace as a whole is next to impossible.

The only thing I would ask of the government is that they stay on the level with us and let us know what kind of information they collect. We are not the enemy, and we should be treated as such.

 

[Dark Atheist]

Although each participating country would manage and secure its own data, the sharing of personal data between countries is becoming an increasingly controversial area of police practice. There is political concern at Westminster about the public transparency of such cooperation.

And that is where data can be lost, what if some one at the fbi has a copy of your info on a laptop and that laptop is stolen, what if its not encrypted

 

[mlakrid]

Although each participating country would manage and secure its own data, the sharing of personal data between countries is becoming an increasingly controversial area of police practice. There is political concern at Westminster about the public transparency of such cooperation.

And that is where data can be lost, what if some one at the fbi has a copy of your info on a laptop and that laptop is stolen, what if its not encrypted

Better check your Data...
The UK has had more security issues than all US governmental bodies added together in recent history...

 

[Dark Atheist]

as should you, as i posted about the UKs **** ups a few posts back, and just because you dont hear of the same in the states doesnt mean it does not happen

 

[falconguard]

as should you, as i posted about the UKs **** ups a few posts back, and just because you dont hear of the same in the states doesnt mean it does not happen

We rely on our credit card companies to lose our identity on a regular basis:laugh:

 

[mlakrid]

as should you, as i posted about the UKs **** ups a few posts back, and just because you dont hear of the same in the states doesnt mean it does not happen

My point is simple... the U.S. Federal Governments networks are isolated networks not touched by the www.

So, unless it was both public record and connected on the www., it would be near impossible to hack the networks now available for governmental use, unless someone from within attached that said network to the outside world...

Most hacks of U.S. governments networks that have been hacked have come from within not outside of the network... not to mention how I know, but there is such a thing as network monitoring which happens every day, and is posted on almost every network available to workers within the Intel community...

:smoker:

Mike A!

 

[Dark Atheist]

explain how the pentagon got hacked (which was done by a UK man ), no system is 100% secure

 

[mlakrid]

explain how the pentagon got hacked (which was done by a UK man ), no system is 100% secure

Again... differing networks... the network you are reffering to is one of the lowest guarded networks...
I am also betting he hacked the same... UNSECURED network which China is responsible for hacking into several times since 2004 FYI.. unsecured = unclassified or FOUO (for official use only)

There is no "one" network within the US government which is the Pentagon, or the White House network...

Which is why I find all of this so humorous...

Mike A!