Reply #98: Yes, we've discussed it before

[HFishbine]

and each time, you fail to see the point. Let's try again.

"I don't see it as a nefarious company..."

Fine. I don't have an opinion one way or another. The issue is not Acxiom.

"Nor do I believe improving airport security to be a bad thing."

Fine. Nor do I. Please quit setting up a flase choice between airport security good or bad. That's not the issue, and I believe you know that by now.

"If you're concerned about data mining, you would be more apt if you were to attack credit card companies and the cookies on your computer."

Data mining is not the issue and I surf with cookies turned off, thank you.

"But I don't share your concerns regarding Acxiom."

That much is understood. However, that's not a pursuasive argument. It certainly explains your position, but it does zero to convince someone that Clark is not insensitive to the Bill of Rights.

Once again, here is my concern. In an effort to increase airport security, the government, through the TSA seeks to compile, from commercial and public sources, tracking dossiers on its citizens. The underlying problems with this are twofold:

1) The government has never before compiled for survelience purposes, such an extensive collection of data on each of its citizens. Make the argument that the times demand it, if you will. But please accept the fact that this is unprecedented and please recognize that because it is for the purpose of "predictive" law enforcement, there exists a substantative distincction between this and data mining for marketing purposes.

2) Once this database is established, it will be used to conduct a type of high-tech profiling for the purpose of pre-emptive detention. This means we will no longer have the protection of probable cause.

Until the terra boogie man took hold of our collective psyche, law enforcement could execute a search or a detention through one of two ways. Either they could take their evidence to judge (or magistrate) who would evaluate whether the suspicions are valid, or there had to be reasonable prima facia evidence that a crime was being committed or public safety was in jeopardy -- the smell of pot in the air, a driver weaving erratically, or a man walking through the mall carrying an axe.

Under the TSA's plan, there would be no prior judicial review and instead of reasonable evidence of a crime committed or an immenent criminal act about to be committed, one could be detained for having some similarities to a "terrorist profile."

It is a stretch to imagine in the first place that an accurate terrorist profile could be created to begin with -- are we going to build a profile based on Saudi hijackers, Timothy McVei, The Earth Liberation Front, abortion doctor killers, or the box cutter sneak, Nat Heatwole?

Such a system could never be effective. It will result in the detention of people who are not terrorists, but who are from the "wrong" city, subscribe to the "wrong" publications, rent the "wrong" kind of car, have moved the "wrong" number of times, or bought the "wrong" kind of boots.

It will also fail to catch a careful sleeper agent who has lived the "perfect" life but is recruited or, for his own reasons, commits to terrorism. Look at Nat Heatwole, the guy who snuck box cutter on board a couple of Soutwest planes -- all-American college student with good grades. Would such a sytem have flagged him? Not without flagging every other college junior. And now that we know what he did, would we add college students to the "list;" or just students who attend colleges with Quaker tradidions; or just students from Guilford College?

The bottom line is that the TSA's plans for such a system bear too great a cost, in money and, most importantly, in civil liberties. Clark is going to come up against this issue sooner or later. He needs a good explaination. My hope is it will be one that repudiates the notion all together, just as his supporters expect him to defend civil liberties by repudiating the Patriot Act. And tuley, it is a genuine hope because I like him for many other things, but this issue is a real stumbling block for this voter.