I actually would want to see it, or a realistic summary. For example, today I
went to the county records building. There, they store various records that
are there for the public to review. They store the recent data in computers,
from about 1996 onwards. Everything else is in the books, the books are large
ledger books, with thousands of pages with with sixty or so lines per page,
with thousands of books. So, if I had bought property in the county, the
record would be there for me to review.
So, about the question to ask the FBI, ask, "before this request, what are
your records with me?" And it would probably be empty. If it wasn't, then
from that information I could learn much more about it why. So, the same
question would go for similar agencies.
I have suggested in the past that government agencies be required to abandon
interagency unique identifiers. For example, the "Taxpayer Identification
Number", "TIN", or as it is more often known the "Social Security Number", is
too widespread. For example, some types of fraud play upon information
readily accessible from that, which is why banks and many private people
reserve that kind of personal information.
Moreso than that, I want to see the money trail, where our taxes go, in
general enough terms. It's easy, or not, to get the copies of the budgets
from the Government Printing Office, but the goal is to be able to audit the
government, to some extent, to ensure that they perform legally, effectively,
and with due diligence.
Ross
John Marlow wrote:
> As to the issue you raise--asking to see your on-file info, this in
> itself is considered reason for suspicion by governmental
> authorities. The FBI, for example, maintains a file on anyone who
> asks the FBI whether they maintain a file on them. If there was none
> before the question was asked, one is created--so the answer is
> always, "Yes."
>
> jm
>
> On 26 Apr 2001, at 16:31, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>
> ....
> > For example, I normally would want the same information that various
> > forms of local authorities have about myself only, but not other people,
> > for them not being my business. What that means in terms of freedom of
> > information is that they do not have privy to copyrights actually
> > involving personal identity. So, I think the law should be that you
> > should be able to ask some organization that tracks personal information
> > if it has information upon you or where its sole provider of information
> > upon you is, and to what levels they have access, where one simple
> > request for your own or your dependents' personal information store's
> > possible presense and its extent would be regular practice to actually
> > receive that information readily, and the complete extent of local,
> > personal information readily......
> >
>
> John Marlow
-- Ross Andrew Finlayson Finlayson Consulting Ross at Tiki-Lounge: http://www.tiki-lounge.com/~raf/ "It's always one more." - Internet multi-player computer game player
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:59 MDT