Well this is certainly interesting. Clinton talks on the global economy Former President Bill Clinton called on an audience of students to prepare for a future when America will no longer be "the biggest dog on the street" at the keynote address Tuesday of a New York University forum on globalization. "On Sept. 11, 2001, members of Al Quaeda used the forces of globalization - open borders, easy immigration, easy travel, easy access to information technology - to kill 3,100 people from 70 countries in three cities in the U.S.," Clinton said. There are ways to improve our security without sacrificing civil liberties, Clinton stressed. For starters, our government needs to start using the same kinds of tracking systems employed by direct marketers and credit card companies, he said. With such technology the government in a short period of time can track people who have multiple addresses on file, such as Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta, who had 12 addresses registered in the U.S, Clinton said. The government could also monitor people who have accrued a lot of credit card debt, he added, giving the example of the Sept. 11 terrorist who racked up $260,000 of debt on 30 credit cards. Profiling people according to their movements or debt is much preferable than "profiling people because of their religion or ethnic heritage or whatever else," Clinton said, adding that people with such extreme habits were "either rich or up to no good." Full article
...or both? Not sure if this is such a good idea, either. It's bad enough financial institutions are tracking all of our spending habits. I can't tell why I fear something like this, but my gut instinct is saying this is wrong. Maybe someone on hear can belay my fears.
One might be worried that if you buy a book written by an extremist activist, the FBI will put you on some watch list, but I guess if they were so motivated, they would be doing it already.
If you don't want credit-rating companies tracking your financial life, don't get a credit card and don't open a bank account. Why do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the credit card company that is lending you money? Without reasonably accurate information about who is and who is not a good credit risk, a huge chunk of the American economy would be in big trouble. I see nothing inherently wrong with the government buying this kind of data, either. Why is it OK for American Express or Bloomingdales to buy my credit report but not the Justice Department?
Because American Express or Bloomingdales only uses the information to determine if you qualify for further credit. The US Government will be using the information to harrass, intimidate, and interrogate US citizens at airports, or maybe just show up at your house one day to inquire about your frequent travels.
I understand credit agencies needing my financial information for that purpose. And I wasn't necessarily lamenting it. But if I had my choice, I would keep the government way the hell away from my financial transactions. I have nothing to hide. They just don't need to know my spending habits.
Gimme a break, if Bush or Ashcroft suggested this you guys would be all over it like flies on ************ and you damn well know it. Alex
And, herein, lies the problem with the political forum. This idea is scary, and hideous, no matter who suggests it. If President Bush wanted it, I'd scream bloody murder. Clinton suggests it, and I scream just as loud.
Agreed. This is a horrible idea, no matter who proposes it. People who haven't done anything wrong are entitled to their privacy.
Absolutely I would not be defending it. As a matter of fact the Bush Administration supports parts of what Clinton says above and I oppose their efforts to do so.
I agree it's scary but at least profiling people based on behavior that fits a suspicious profile (hence the name) comes closer to targeting behavior that might be consistent with someone who is trying to cover their tracks, and who is racking up large bills because they know they won't be around to have to pay them. This is the "profile" of someone you might want to have a talk with if your are in the FBI. Compare that with the "drift-net" profile of trying to track everyone of certain nationalities, or religions. It all comes down to how much -- if any -- you can tolerate the government mining information about its residents. The alternative, no domestic data mining or profiling is possible. But in that case we all need to know what the consequences are, things like 9/11 which are only possible in an open and free society. So, where does one draw the line? And don't say that it's okay to do it to foregners but not to us. Rembember Oklahoma City, okay. That dog won't hunt.
Everybody misses the biggest point in this discussion...these credit card folks know more about us than the FBI. Not only is this a bad idea, but the credit people have to be controlled more. After all, their ability to do more harm to individuals in bad enough, but they offer up credit to identity thieft specialists and act like it is not their problem, but our problem. No doubt, the "follow the money" is easy in backtracking to find and cut the terrorist infrastructure, but raises many ethical questions if done in a proactive manner.