Should We Create a Bureaucrat Registry?

Post Reply New Topic

I've been thinking about this one long and hard. The federal government as well as all the state governments have a mandatory registry for sex offenders because sex offenders are perceived to be a threat to people. This country's founders rightfully deemed governments and rulers to be a huge threat to society due to the power they wield. In fact, bureaucrats routinely exchange personal information about us with each other without our knowledge and consent. I recently had my personal medical information given to an agency that has nothing to do with my medical treatment, and I resent the hell out of this invasion of my privacy.

What I have been thinking about is creating a registry that shares the personal information about bureaucrats with the public. This registry would contain the name, birthdate, agency affiliation, home address, vehicle make and descriptions, license plate numbers, and other personal information of anyone connected to government agencies or private agencies which have government powers. The people listed in the registry will be those whose decisions affect the lives of citizens. In addition, the registry should be able to generate maps to show where the registered bureaucrats live and allow this information to be loaded onto GPS devices.

The purpose of this database would be to basically do to bureaucrats what they have been doing to us for many years. There would also need to be procedures set up so that those listed in the registry would have a way to get their names and personal information removed once they are no longer a bureaucrat. Florida's sex offender registry provides a way for registrants to have their name removed after a period of 30 years without another conviction. Should this standard be applied to bureaucrat's or should the period of registration be a lesser amount of time?

The actual website needed to get the registry up and running is easy and cheap to set up. The main problem that I see would be in recruiting the people needed to enter accurate information about decision making bureaucrats into the system. The system itself would have to be set up so that it is out of the reach of those decision making bureaucrats who do not want their information listed.
A precursor to the registry can be found at http://www.opcva.com/watchdog/. This website contains listings of and links to the personal information of various bureaucrats who flagrantly violate the personal privacy of citizens.

To give an idea about what the government makes sex offenders reveal go to http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/

Sorry can't support you because:

1) public employees' names and salaries are currently public information in most states;

2) it would mean that every nutcase with an axe to grind could threaten any public employee and/or their relatives which would mean no work could be done at all, really; and,

3) i'm sorry someone released your information to some agency you think inappropriate. rather than rant about "those evil bureaucrats" you might consider suing the pants off of whatever agency released your information without your permission.

1) Then this is just one source out of many where registry information can be obtained.

2) When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Like other people, public employees have the right to bear arms and defend themselves. Sure there may be cases of people threatening public decision making employees, but what about the threat to citizens when their information is exchanged between bureaucrats and in some cases released by the bureaucrats to the public (without consent of person to which the information pertains)? In my case, this threat may result in my being unable to make a living.

3) As much as I would like to be able to sue the pants off the agency that released my medical information, I am unable to afford to do so. In addition, "laws" that prevent average citizens from disclosing personal medical information specifically enable bureaucrats to do this very thing without legal penalties. By creating the bureaucrat registry, I want to motivate bureaucrats to create laws and policies that bind them from disclosing the very personal information that we as citizens are forbidden to disclose. If you visit http://www.opcva.com/watchdog/RECORDS.html you will see how making bureaucrats' information public has forced many to implement policies that protect the private information of citizens. I don't want to see any person, citizen or bureaucrat harmed, but I want to hold bureaucrats to the same standards as other people.

I also want to say that I don't have any guns that will be useful in physically defending myself against bureaucrat's infringment upon my rights or privacy. I also do not have the money it would take to fight for my and other citizens' rights in today's court system. The only weapon I have to ensure that citizens' rights and privacy are protected is my brain and my computer. These are the only effective tools at my disposal. So far, the people who voted on this poll on this and other websites are very much in favor of this registry. If I, for some reason, become unable to implement the registry, it is my sincerest hope that others will take up the cause.

I am currently researching Internet domain registrars, hosting providers, and other services that will enable me to create the registry. I'm also looking into ways of recruiting citizens to enter information into the database to ensure that only accurate information is displayed to the public. If and when I get the site up and running, I want to ensure that the information is accurate. However, I will also post information disclosing the fact that the information cannot be guaranteed to be correct and that the only accurate way of identifying listed bureaucrats is by fingerprints. This is the standard that bureaucrats set for people who are required to be registered in public databases. It is the same standard that I intend to apply to them.

I don't think There is really much use for such a registry, because it isn't that these people personally want to harm us, but that they apply the rules in a way that they need to do this. That is exactly what a bureaucrat is: someone who values rules and legislation over civil rights. But if the rules are bureaucratic and this person would ge tinto trouble for *not* doing this, there'sno reason to punish them personally.

One of the excuses that many a war criminal used is that they were just following orders. If a person's job causes other people harm, then they should be held accountable in one way or another. If they don't want to be listed, then they could find another job or work within their agency to get the rules changed.

I wouldn't thank you for that, buddy. I am a public servant, and I spend enough of my week dealing with vitriolic letters. I don't want people to be able to knock on my door at all hours to rant about how they're not happy with something. I don't want nasty phone calls.

An acquaintance of mine, who is a public prosecutor, has had problems with stalkers in the past - and that's without her personal details being published for all and sundry.

Letters written in wax crayon, I can deal with. 40-odd page rants about McCarthyism, I can deal with. But for my peace of mind and my personal safety, I'd prefer not to get this kind of thing.

(And, believe it or not, I work in a relatively small and uncontroversial area. There are people who do far more high-profile things. You think I've got nutjobs, wait til somebody mails you a turd, or a letter written in blood, or a baggie of white powder.)

Do you make decisions that affect other peoples' lives or do you exchange information about citizens withthout their knowledge and consent? If you answer no to both of these questions, then your information would not be on the registry. If you answer yes, then there are two solutions. One, you can quit your job as a bureaucrat or 2, you can work to ensure that citizens information is not traded between agencies without their knowledge and consent. I too am concerned about my safety and well being. Because my private medical information was given to an agency that has nothing to do with providing or paying for medical treatment, I may very well lose the ability to support myself. I can understand your position, so please understand mine.

Last edited by cyberscan on 18 Aug 2009, 1:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

I do make decisions that affect people's lives - but I don't trade personal data.
I work on employment law, and I spend a lot of time trying to give people more rights at work. One of my current projects relates to stopping employers illegally trading personal data.

I understand your position, but I think you'd do better to complain to the relevant ombudsman. There are plenty of people out there who are public servants, working in offices, who don't have anything to do with your personal data. They don't trade it, they don't read it, nothing. On the other hand, people make mistakes. It could be an honest accident.

Rather than going off the deep end, you might do well to make a few calls and see if you can get them to a) apologise and b) destroy any data that was wrongly transferred.

I think its a great idea. Most bureaucrats dont give two cents about the rights of citizens (present company excepted, I hope), and its for the reason that we are losing our rights like sand from the top end of an hourglass. Calling them and bitching would do nothing but aggravate them, which would have an opposite effect. Besides, most bureucrats wont listen to anyone who doesn't go through the "proper channels", which are designed to be so exhaustingly difficult that no one has the time to complain. I think that having their personal data exposed to the general public will help forestall the government espionage movement. See how they like having all and sundry know how to find them without having to go through the "proper channels."

I think is a bad idea to place in the public domain a list of bureaucrats. The thing is that most people say "bureaucrats this, or bureaucrats that" without having meet one or knowing much about one.

I will work on that angle. As far as the registry is concerned, I will see what can be done to allow bureaucrats to apply for an exemption from inclusion in the registry. I will work to make sure any processing fee paid by the applicant will be only as high as needed to cover the costs of processing the application. In doing this, I will be giving bureaucrats more privacy considerations than what was given me. If as you say, you work to ensure the rights of people at work, I doubt that you would have much problems resulting from listing. You would however, have the same privilege of applying for an exemption.



This is EXACTLY what I have run up against. People in general have been outraged at the release of personal information by elected and unelected people. HIPAA was supposed to address these privacy concerns, but it instead gave government agencies even more power. I am definitely outraged at the release of my private medical information to a nonmedical bureaucratic agency. Unfortunately, this release of information is perfectly legal in the eyes of legislation and the court system. I have no legal recourse nor can I afford to litigate in the court system if I did. Like Roxas_XIII says, the "proper channels", are designed to be so exhaustingly difficult that no one has the time to complain. It is time to do something, and I think that something is to give the rule and policy makers and enforcers a taste of their own medicine. If enough people working for government agencies quit their jobs over being listed, then governments will be forced to make changes and to respect the rights of the people.

I have posted a poll on this website as well as others to see what people have to say about the registry. The results vary from 66% of people voting in favor of it to about 80% of people voting for it. I've decided what I am going to do. I'm going ahead with creating the registry website. I will not, however, start entering or allow to be entered the personal information of bureaucrats at this time. I will be in the design process of coding the back and front ends that will make the registry work. On the front page of the registry web site, I will explain what the registry is for and why I have created it. I will also host a frequently asked questions page that will attempt to answer questions from the general public as well as bureaucrats that may be registered. This page will also show how and where to download the registry data should the site be shut down.

Once the the site is up and running and the front and back ends are coded, I will run test data of fictional people. I will leave the fictional information up and will collect further feedback. This will demonstrate how easy it is to set up such a registry. It is not my desire to post peoples' personal information if it can at all be avoided. Maybe having a working demonstration up and running will motivate bureaucrats to start respecting the privacy of citizens and start implementing policies to stop the transfer of personal information among government agencies without notifying the subject of such information transfer of each and every transfer and giving the subject the choice to opt out of such transfer.

Is this a good compromise?

It's a very bad idea.
You may fall foul of local laws on privacy and data protection.

Even if it's just a prototype with entries for Joe Bloggs, 1 Any Street, Sometown - take legal advice.

And think about all the people who have nothing to do with your quarrel who you'd be inconveniencing if it went live. This kind of approach is like using a nuke to swat a fly.

Think about all the people who are inconvenienced who want nothing to do with being in breaucrats databases when these databases are breached due to lack of competent security. Also think about all of the people inconvenienced when their info is flagged for whaever reason and they are forced to pay fines for somathing they didn't do or have to jump through a number of hoops when their persal information is misrecorded or disclosed.
Too bad data protection and privacy laws do not apply to bureaucrats. I don't want to do this to anyone, but there needs to be many changes. The Virginia Watchdog forced bureaucrats to protect the personal data of citizens that they released on public sites. I'm trying to find a compromise that fits the interests of all.

I basically want government officails do what they did in Eastern Europe as they moved away from communism. Even the East German border guards finally caught on and refused to shoot people who were crossing the Iron Curtain. This is the change I want to instill in America. We have to do something to regain our freedom.

To the OP - I've been trying to figure out what's set you off, and from reading some other posts online here what I ~think~ happened is this:

You had a seizure or had an episode of some other medical condition that made it potentially unsafe for you to drive. I don't know the law in Florida, but I think it is probably the law there as it is in California: that medical personnel are required to report any person who may have such a condition to the motor vehicles licensing department. The motor vehicles people will then have to ascertain if the person is a danger to others (and themselves) when driving, and, thus, whether or not they should have their license revoked.

My daughter passed out and had seizure-like activity in a public place about two years ago and we went through just that. Three months with no driver's license. I had absolutely no problem with that, because had she been behind the wheel of a car at the time she could have killed someone. Once the three months passed with no further problems, her license was reinstated. I had to drive her everywhere she went, including to and from work. It was a serious inconvenience, but lives were potentially at stake so it was perfectly reasonable to have been expected to deal with it that way.

~IF~ that's what's going on in your case, I suggest that you stop blaming "bureaucrats" for your problem. It's not their fault - they are required to report these conditions by law. If you don't like the law, work to get it changed. I don't think you'll have a lot of support for that, though, because, quite frankly, if someone's prone to passing out at the wheel (etc.) they should NOT be driving until it can be ascertained that they don't have any real potential to injure someone. And thank GOD that someone took the time to report it so that the driver's license was under question, whether required to by law or not. IF that's what's happened, they may have saved your life and, potentially, that of people you could have hit/injured/killed.

It's a damned shame when these things happen - and it's nobody's "fault" when someone does have a medical condition like that - but that's the breaks. I put it on the same par as sitting in your living room and having your home blown away by a tornado. It's a disaster. But blaming someone for something like that is just a tad on the bizarre side.

Now, if that's NOT what happened, please disregard.

As for your proposal - you're wanting to set up a publically-viewed database. That will have to be managed by someone, and verified by someone... voila! You've set up your very own bureaucracy. Which is, by definition, run by bureaucrats. (One would assume you would hire disinterested third parties to manage the thing, otherwise you run the risk of running a politically driven black-list, in which case you might as well start ordering the brown shirts for everyone to wear....) You'd better get some serious legal advice to make sure you don't end up explaining this all to a judge, somewhere, and creating even more misery for yourself.

The people have spoken and are speaking out. I am putting off the bureaucrat registry for now. However, for your information, the last disclosure of my personal medical information was not the only or even main reason for me wanting to create this registry. I still have my drivers license, and I do not drive. What "set me off," as you put it, is the fact that governments at all levels have been increasingly intrusive in the lives of people. Rather than existing as orginally intended to safeguard the liberties of the people, they have instead gotten to the point where they dictate nearly every aspect of people's lives. Just think about it. The governments can tell you what kind of trees you can have in your yard, what color you can paint your house, what kind of vehicle you can have in your driveway, etc. They can tell you what kinf of medical treatment you are and aren't allowed to have, what kind of work you can or cannot do, and the list goes on and on. Most of those who make these decisions are not even elected by the people. They are unelected and unaccountable regulators, commisars, administrative judges, etc.

If there is a dispute against any government decision, the onus is on the citizen. However, it is not as simple as a citizen coming to court, arguing his or her case, and having a jury or even a real judge decide. In order to bring a case, no matter what the grievance, a citizen has to wade through a ton of paperwork, spend vast sums of money, and go through a maze of clerks, jerks, etc to even have a CHANCE at being heard. Even if and when a citizen's grievance make it on the docket, that is only the beginning. The government agency against which the case is brought, can use its administrative rules, procedures, etc to push back the decision. Rather than ruling in favor or against a defendant, the agency in question gets continuances after continuances to drag out the case. This usually results in the citizen who usually works for a living to give up. The citizen can not afford to take many hours off work all the time in order to appear in front of a court on the appointed date only to have the government agency get the court to get a continuance. In most cases, the citizen does not have the same option.

I can give examples of case after case where a citizen is forced to pay an unjust fine simply because he obtained permission to permorm a task only to have that permission overridden by a "higher up." Another case I know involves a citizen who bought fish from a market to eat while he was aboard his vessel. His vessel was searched by the state marine patrol. The citizen was given a fine for possessing a fish out of season. Even though this citizen contested the fine, he ended up having to pay the fine simply because it was cheaper to pay it rather than missing trips in order to keep appearing before the court while the marine patrol pushed for the hearing to be delayed. Another case involves a person who received a speeding fine in a school zone even though she was or does not speed. I have had numerous experiences with the court system as both litigant and witness. Let me tell you, it is neither fair, partial, or in many cases even within the law.
It is nearly impossible for even a completely innocent person who happens to not have a lot of money to get exonerated. Even when exonerated, the damge from the fight itself is in most cases as bad or worse than the penalty handed down if found guilty.
http://www.fija.org

People in Amerika THINK that the Constitution guarantees their rights, but unfortunately, it does not. The only thing that guarantees rights in the Police States of Amerika is having more money and political power than the person or agency with whom you have a grievance. The perpose of the bureaucrat registry was to empower INDIVIDUAL citizens and give them the same information that government agencies hold over them. I had no intention of politicizing the registry. My only purpose was to put out information. The criteria to be listed was simply being a government or quasi government agent, elected official, judge, administaror, etc. I intended to list individuals from health inspectors, building inspectors, DMV officals, and even my favorite congressman, Ron Paul. In fact, my personal preferences wouldn't have even come into play. I intended to write data mining software to do the actual creation of the registry. I feel that those who would have been listed on the registry who did right ruling would not have anything to fear from the people.

People in Amerik need to come to a decision as to where they want to be men, women, and children with individual liberty and responsibility or merely chattel who are to be stamped, numbered and only heard from when it comes to tax time. I prefer to be in the former category. If being put in jail or being hauled on front of some kangaroo court would be the price for execising freedom of speech and ensuring liberty, then so be it. I took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. However, this is a mute point. As of now, the people have spoken, and I have decided against working to create the bureaucrat registry at this time.