[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I should think it was fairly uncontroversial that, if nothing else, it's a lot more dangerous for such data to be held in one place even if you trust the government entirely.

i could agree that it isn't controversial, but i would say that it's unclear to me that it shouldn't be.

i don't trust the thugs and child molesters in our executive branch any farther than i can shit, but i don't stay up late at night worrying that someday they might have access to my earnings history and eye color. worry that they could kidnap me from my home, send me off to some third-world nation to be tortured for years with no legal recourse? yeah, that may be a gray hair or two. but i don't see how they relate.

and that's from someone who doesn't trust his government. i guess i simply don't see what the "dangers" you are referring to.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

And it goes without saying that many of us don't trust the government entirely anyway. Given that, it's a bit more reassuring that data is widely dispersed with no automatic immediate access available to any one agency. If nothing else, this dispersal of information slows the government down dramatically (and in this sort of data analysis work slowing down may mean in practical terms make impossible). This may be seen as a huge disadvantage if your top priority is fighting crime, but understandably that's not my priority.

i agree that this dispersal makes it, in some cases, difficult for the government to act. i don't see that as obviously a good thing, and i certainly don't see why some people act like the issue should be a major priority for 'alert citizens'.

obviously the history of the world has few things more common than governments overreaching, with predictably disastrous results. but to my knowledge none of them related to excessively centralized databases.

PS: what is your priority?