Yeah,I saw this happen to Sandra Bullock...
The NCIC database provides over 80,000 law enforcement agencies with access
to a computerized network of more than 39 million records regarding
criminal activity. For the past thirty years, the FBI has operated the NCIC
database with the Privacy Act accuracy requirement in place. The relevant
provision requires that any agency that maintains a system of records,
"maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any
determination about any individual with such accuracy, relevance,
timeliness, and completeness as is reasonably necessary to assure fairness
to the individuals in the determination." [2] Circumventing that statutory
obligation poses significant risks not only for citizens whose record files
may be part of this data system, but also for communities that rely on law
enforcement to employ effective, reliable tools for ensuring public safety.
Accordingly, the OMB should request that the FBI continue to follow the
obligations of the Privacy Act. The NCIC database was first established by
the FBI, under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, in 1967. The purpose for
maintaining the system is to facilitate the quick exchange of information
about crimes and criminal activities between various law enforcement
agencies. The FBI recently spent $182 million to modernize the data system.
It now provides law enforcement agencies with instant access to
fingerprinting and mugshot images. It also continues to include information
on stolen vehicles and other articles; persons with outstanding felony and
misdemeanor warrants; missing persons; suspected gang members; suspected
terrorists; and individuals' arrest records. NCIC is used by a broad range
of criminal justice agencies, from top federal law enforcement officials to
municipal police. During its first year of implementation, approximately 2
million inquiries were processed. Since then, its use has grown
significantly. In March 2002, the FBI set a new record for inquiries
processed in one day, responding to 3,295,587 requests. On average, there
are 2.8 million transaction processed each day, with an average response
time of 0.16 second. As a result, any error in the NCIC database can spread
across the country in less than a second. [3] Several well publicized
incidents demonstrated the consequences of inaccurate and incomplete
information in the NCIC. In one case, a Los Angeles man was arrested five
times, three at gun point, due to an error in the NCIC. [4] In another, a
Phoenix resident, who was pulled over for driving the wrong way down a
one-way street, was arrested after an NCIC inquiry erroneously revealed an
outstanding misdemeanor arrest warrant that had been quashed weeks earlier.
[5] These incidents, and others like it, reveal the potential harms that
individual citizens may face if the records in the NCIC database are not
accurate. These incidents demonstrate that the FBI should work to improve
the accuracy of this system of records, rather than administratively exempt
itself of this important duty. Indeed, one of the major purposes behind the
enactment of the Privacy Act was to guard against these harms by
establishing standards for the quality of data the government collects
about individuals. In passing the Act, Congress found that "the
opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance, and
credit, and his rights to due process, and other legal protections are
endangered by the misuse of certain information systems," and therefore "it
is necessary and proper for the Congress to regulate the collection,
maintenance, use and dissemination of information by such agencies." [6] To
that end, Congress passed the Act to ensure, among other things, that any
information held in government would be "current and accurate for its
intended use." [7] Since the passage of the Privacy Act thirty years ago,
there has been general agreement that the FBI would go forward with the
NCIC database, provided that it comply with the Act's obligations. Now, the
FBI effectively seeks to sever that agreement, suddenly asserting that "it
is impossible to determine in advance what information is accurate,
relevant, timely and complete." [8] This is a sharp, historical departure.
The Privacy Act should continue to operate for this important set of
records. The obligations of the Privacy Act are important not only for the
individuals who may have records in the NCIC database, but also for the
effectiveness of the data system itself as a law enforcement tool. In
Arizona v. Evans, the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment's
exclusionary rule did not require the suppression of evidence obtained
during an arrest that was based upon false information in the NCIC
database. Justice O'Connor, writing in concurrence, asserted that it would
be unreasonable, however, for a police department to depend upon a record
keeping system that has no accuracy safeguards and routinely leads to false
arrests. [9] She said that if the police blindly relied on a data system
without adequate mechanisms to ensure its accuracy, then courts could
prohibit the use of any evidence obtained in an arrest resulting from
erroneous information in the database. In the case before the Court,
O'Connor believed that the police department's reliance on NCIC was
reasonable. Nevertheless, she indicated that if procedures were not in
place to help ensure the accuracy of the data, evidence collected during
those arrests could be suppressed. Her concurrence underscores how the
Privacy Act's data quality requirements serve as an important mechanism for
ensuring the legitimate, effective use of the NCIC database for law
enforcement activities. The FBI's unilateral decision to exempt this data
system from the accuracy obligations of the Privacy Act puts criminal
justice agencies at risk of unreasonably relying on inaccurate, incomplete
information. Given the risks inaccurate NCIC data poses to both individual
citizens and law enforcement agencies, the F.B.I. should continue to comply
with the obligations of the Privacy Act.
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04613.html
Should it continue to act as a STASI like arm of an Amerikkan Gestapo all
members and associates and families of said state criminals may be shot on
sight.
