Help Settle a Disagreement: Clark/Acxiom a Campaign Issue?

[HFishbine]

I became engaged in another thread with a fellow DUer about whether or not Clark's lobbying for Acxiom, a firm that wants to help the goverment establish dossiers on American citizens for airport screening, would or would not be a campaign issue.

I contend it will be, at least until and unless Clark offers some explaination of what his policy position will be if elected. My "opponent" contends it will not be a campaign issue and demanded proof that it would be an issue to anybody other than me.

The way I see it, the extent of the survelience and the unprecedented act of compiling dossiers on every American by the government is unacceptable. Using them to pre-emptivley detain people because one fits a profile is a violiation of the Fourth Amendment in my opinion. I think it is the beginning of a slippery slope to even greater government monitoring of its citizens.

I'll let my adisary make his case, which I'm sure he will soon.

What do DUers think? In considering Clark, will this be a campaign issue for you, or do you think it's a non-issue.

Here's some back ground:
--------------

Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark helped an Arkansas information company win a contract to assist development of an airline passenger screening system, one of the largest surveillance programs ever devised by the government.

Starting just after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Clark sought out dozens of government and industry officials on behalf of Acxiom Corp., a data powerhouse that maintains names, addresses and a wide array of personal details about nearly every adult in the United States and their households, according to interviews and documents.

<snip>

"The privacy impact of anti-terrorism initiatives is certain to be a major issue in the presidential campaign," said David L. Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, an advocacy group in the District.

"The public is extremely skeptical," he said. "He owes the public an explanation as to how, if elected, he would limit the government's expanding collection of personal information about citizens."


More: (May have to cut and paste if link is broken)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7380-2003Sep26¬Found=true

[RichardRay]

1. Not an issue

I go with Larry Ellison's remark from some years ago:

"Privacy is a myth, get over it."

He was referring to online privacy, but I find my life much easier to live if I don't worry about it in general.

YMMV

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[newyawker99]

13. Hi RichardRay!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[unfrigginreal]

2. The fact that he's a lobbyist will hurt him more than his ties to Axciom

It somewhat taints his outsider status.

[CWebster]

3. It should be an issue -

but it requires a more detailed and serious response other than the typical: I-was-in-the-MIC-and-know-how-the-game-is-played-so-count-on-me spin on it all, so don't expect anything of real substance or relevance to be addressed.

[Wickerman]

4. From what I have seen so fair I would rather Wes lobbied for Acxiom

than some of the other Ashcroft aiders and abbetters. I can understand that Wes might have a different view of security than me, but Wes would also carry a much more liberal view to discussion of that security than would Ashcroft. I'm glad that a man like him was there and in the mix of discussion, instead of Acxion geeting only the persepective of the far right .

[Girlfriday]

5. Not an issue for me

I have to be honest and say that if I were summarily dismissed by the likes of Cohen and Shelton, and found myself out in the cold all of a sudden, I probably would have become a lobbyist - so what?

[HFishbine]

21. I respect your opinion

but my concern is less with him working as a lobbyist and more about what he was lobbying for.

[dkf]

6. I have big problems with Clark and privacy issues.

Clark's connection to Acxiom and his participation in setting up CAPPSII is an absolute deal breaker with me and with several people I have talked to about this.

One of my friends who asked me about Wes Clark instantly dropped him when I told her about Clark's foray into government surveillance on all its citizens who travel.

Another friend said her boyfriend really liked Clark. I gave her the Washington Post article on Clark's lobbying for Acxiom and Practical Nomad's writeup on CAPPSII and he is now seriously concerned about Clark.

Frankly, in my experience people who are considering Clark and do not have strong feelings about him are really turned off when informed of this issue.

[KittyWampus]

7. Profiling Airline Passengers Is A Valid Goal

Data Mining is a valid business.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KittyWampus]

11. I'm Not Afraid Of Boogiemen

Ever hear of the Hart Rudman Report? There are serious problems with transportation safety... especially as regards evaluating passengers for potential terrorists.

The current system of evaluating passengers is too simplistic and doesn't work (bacisally it uses name recognition to evaluate people).

Furthermore, I refuse to engage in guilt by association tactics that many on DU engage in.

Clark has spoken about the need to protect civil liberties and how the Patriot Act must be reviewed.

Acxiom maintains a database of legally obtained information that it provides to telemarketers or research groups.

Acxiom IS NOT CAPPS II.

Clark has NOTHING TO DO WITH CAPPSII.

CAPPS II was created by the government and it hired a company AXCIOM which does legal work DATA MINING.

Acxiom won a contract from the Pentagon to assist in building a passenger database called CAPPS II that airlines would use to screen for potential terrorists. And according to an Acxiom executive and government officials who attended the meetings, Clark was vigilant about insisting that privacy rights be balanced with security needs.

"Many people are surprised when they learn about the wealth of publicly available information: extensive property records; birth, marriage, and death certificates; court records."

In truth, privacy is a myth when it comes to personal information.

"The problem isn't the information, available for anyone to find; rather, it's how the government uses it. CAPPS II, now on hold, would cross-reference its database of information with an established terrorist profile and color-code flyers as green (safe), yellow (question), or red (detain). This would eliminate the random security checks of seventy-five year old men with walkers or harried mothers struggling to control two small children."

"Clark's involvement with Acxiom is a non-issue, like many other non-issues the media seems to be pursuing. The problem isn't Acxiom, which is merely another company taking advantage of capitalism and angling for a lucrative contract. The problem is the CAPPS II program created by the government, and not because it violates privacy. Again, the information is already out there and was never private to begin with. Nobody broke the law to obtain it. The concern is that the program is not foolproof, and innocent people will be scrutinized, which already occurs under the system in place. CAPPS II could only be an improvement over
the current system if it is subjected to proper protocols of oversight and scrutiny to prevent abuse."

[Cocoa]

14. Clark should make his case

This is an issue for me, but I don't think it's about whether Acxiom's work is legal, or if Clark did anything improper. It's about reconciling his work there with his statements on the Patriot Act.

Clark is in a position to illustrate his views on privacy using his own work at Acxiom. He doesn't have a record in government like the others do, for showing how his actions match up with his statements, so he should use what he does have, which is his corporate activities.

[HFishbine]

12. Not Sure Why This Message Was Deleted

But I thought the point made, that peace activist has already been targets of screening systems was a valid point to make.

[wyldwolf]

17. Exactly... this isn't an issue at all to me

[ozone_man]

8. It's an issue for me.

I would like to see more details on Clarks' role in Acxiom as well as the National Endowment for Democracy, etc. What was his relationship with Kissinger? I feel there is alot I don't know about this guy, and what I do know, gives me the creeps.

I am against the whole concept of this Homeland Security stuff, and consider it an invasion of privacy.

Overall, I don't want a covert operations type guy running the government. We had Bush senior already, who was CIA director. Let's have a civilian do the job, let the military stay in the military.

[Rowdyboy]

16. Why even bother getting more details?

I assume you know he's a Rhodes Scholar and finished tops in his class at West Point. I assume you know he was wounded in Vietnam and was highly decorated. You must know that he led the US war in Kosovo without any American casualties and saves thousands of Kosovars.

These things give you the creeps. Okay.

You oppose all "this Homeland Security stuff" and think that only civilians are fit to run the country. Okay.

I'm pretty sure, know matter how much more you find out about Clark, you will never vote for him. That is your right and you're welcome to your opinion.

And I think you do an excellent job of representing the anti-Clark "thought" on this board...

:crazy:

[Julien Sorel]

18. CIA Director is a civilian job, and

I see no evidence in Clark's background that he ever had anything to do with 'covert ops' which, I suppose, is simply evidence of how well it is hidden. :eyes:

[Cocoa]

10. it depends on if other candidates make it an issue

Edwards has been closest to doing this, as far as I know, but he seems to have chosen not to pursue it.

Edwards said on "Face the nation" that Clark needs to explain his involvement there.

[bushclipper]

15. Not at all...

If I were a family member of someone on one of those planes on 9/11, I would certainly have wanted a system in place to help ID terrorists.

[CWebster]

19. The question you need to ask

is who is deciding who the "terrorists" or the threats to national security are. There have been numerous accounts of American dissidents (patriots) hounded and harassed by airline security (there is a list of such incidents in Michael Moore's new book I am told) and I do believe the government admitted to listing profiles of "dissidents".

Under the cover of profiling terrorists, who are they looking at? These are impotant questions because these are exactly the same people, or they are cut from the same cloth as people in the past who decided Martin Luther King, Jr and John Lennon were threats to national security.

Sorry if I seem impatient, but all this endless alarm over the patriot act and what it entails goes right off the radar when people start listing the reasons to enforce it.

[rucky]

20. Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle, KBR, Northrop, ENRON

I'd love to see a Republican open that door by trying to attack Clark for Axicom.

[Pastiche423]

22. Yes, it is an issue w/me

among many more regarding clark that add up to who he is and what he has done.

After the Patriot Act was signed, I became more leery of privacy issues then ever before. Acxiom is yet another tool to rob U.S. citizens of their privacy.

And the cherry on top? He was paid to facilitate the robbery!

Do Democrats really advocate thief of our privacy? Has our party changed so drastically?

[spaniard]

23. Doesn't matter to me one bit...

LONG time lurker. Just decided to pop in.

This is just more of the tinfoil hat stuff that gets passed around as relevant on DU.

[HFishbine]

24. Hmmm

You must have lurking for quite a while to make such an observation on your very first post.

[spaniard]

26. you have a point you'd like to make?

?

[Renew Deal]

27. Welcome Spanianrd

Nice fiery start. You will make us proud. :toast:

[bushclipper]

25. welcome to DU, spaniard!

[Pastiche423]

29. There is nothing tinfoil

about clark working for Axciom. Not only is it a fact, but it's on his resume.

Now, if you think Acxiom is not intruding on the privacy of U.S. citizens, you are either ignorant of the fact or just don't give a fuck about privacy.

If it is the formmer, you can educate yourself on the issue. Google Axciom + airlines.

If it is the latter, might I suggest an education on the Democratic ideology?

[salin]

28. maybe a primary issue but not a gen election issue

heck, the admin has pushed down further and worse roads ... to make it an issue forces the... why was a company doing this (answer: to do work for the GOVERNMENT/BUSH); it also opens up other infringements (or possible ones) on civil rights/privacy rights that have been curtailed by the Patriot Act. So, no - it wouldn't be used as an issue in the general election.