Did Clark Misspeak?

[HFishbine]

From last night's debate in response to a question to General Clark about his involvement with Acxiom:

And when I was consulting with Acxiom -- and I was on the board of the company, and I did take them around and introduce them to various members of the United States government, the Defense Department and so forth, because their technology will improve our security.

But I was insistence that we do so with a firm grip on the privacy issues. Had I still been on that board when all this was going through, I would have insisted that ACLU and others be brought in to pre-approve CAPPS II. Whether that was done or not, I have no idea. (1)

The only problem is, Clark WAS on the board "when all this was going through." Clark didn't terminate his lobbying registration for Axciom until September 17, 2003 (2) and didn't resign from the board of Acxiom until October 9, 2003 (3).

Was CAPPS II "going through" only after 10/9/03? No. It was proposed in January, 2003 (4). During the year of 2003, until his termination, Clak was lobbying the Department of Homeland Security on behalf of Acxiom on matters of "Information transfers, airline security and Homeland Security issues." (5 -- This is from one of Clark's required lobbying filings, but you have to go to the Senate web site to see the form, it isn't posted in Clark's "reading room.")

Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security was actively seeking comments on the privacy issues of CAPPS II in 2003. While hundreds of groups and organizations submitted comments for the record, Clark was not among them. (6)



(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39875-2004Jan22?language=printer

(2) http://www.clark04.com/readingroom/financial/lobby/index.php?page=lobby004

(3) http://www.acxiom.com/default.aspx?ID=2312&Country_Code=USA

(4) http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/CAPPSII_PRIVACY_ACT_NOTICE.pdf

(5) In order to keep the image of this document from loading in this post, the URL has been modified. Copy and past it into a browser window: sopr.senate.gov/2003/01/000/342/000342438.gif

(6) http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm (Enter docket # 1437)

[mmonk]

1. not biting

good research though.

[HFishbine]

16. Ignore at your own peril

Clark supporters dismissed the notion that his envolvement with Acxiom was even an issue, yet -- whamo! There it was in last night's debate. You can now ignore this gross error too if you want, it's up to you.

[wtmusic]

2. Clark is too close to the dark side

of this issue to be truly committed to civil liberties.

IMO.

[mmonk]

5. He has answered directly

on his views concerning civil liberties. I guess if anyone no matter what their position is on privacy matters seek to have the best technoloy in this regard, someone could paint them as being against civil liberties.

[HFishbine]

20. Yes

and his answer in last night's debate included a misstatement of fact.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. Sorry,

that is a crock of shit. Post some proof. Prove that he KNEW about CAPPSII. PROVE that he has ever SEEN the program. PROVE that he was NOT just introducing people to Acxiom, getting phone calls answered. PROVE what he said is a lie. Could I have a link please?

Go, Wes!

[democratreformed]

17. So far, I haven't found anything but still looking...

What I found thus far seems to indicate that what you say is correct.

[Tinoire]

29. The lie: '02- Clark proposes to combine personal data w/ passenger info

I know you've seen this before but just for all of those who haven't and who think this is too important to bury (like me):

Privacy Villain of the Week: Gen. Wesley Clark & Acxiom

More information has come to light in the JetBlue/CAPPS II incident regarding the role of data broker Acxiom and its rainmaker-slash-board-member (and now-presidential candidate) Gen. Wesley Clark.

Privacy Villain of the Week:
Gen. Wesley Clark & Acxiom

You may recall that the incident involved a strange cross-pollination of executive agency functions as a U.S. Army contractor, Torch Concepts, tested a program purportedly intended for the Transportation Security Administration, an agency of the Department of Homeland Security. That program is CAPPS II, the air-travel customer profiling system set to go online early next year, assigning every American who travels by commercial airliner a color-code based on a purported threat level generated by computer algorithms.

The JetBlue scandal arose when it was found out that the airline violated its privacy policy by releasing 5 million "passenger name records" to Torch Concepts. Torch Concepts then crossreferenced those records with information from data-broker Acxiom. That information included such data as gender, residence information, children, Social Security Number, vehicles, occupation and income. In a presentation foolishly posted to the web, complete with at least one passenger's social security number, the test system seemed to flag everyone who wasn't "Young Middle Income Home Owners with Short Length-of-Residence" or "Older Upper Income Home Owners with Longer Length-of-Residence" as a potential terrorist threat worthy of extra airport searches by federal TSA agents.

Acxiom's sale of that data would seem to violate its privacy policy, as outlined in the complaint filed with the Federal Trade Commission by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC):

"Acxiom displays a US Privacy Policy on its website providing in pertinent part:
'Acxiom respects the privacy of every individual about whom we have information. Acxiom and our associates (employees) pledge to conduct our business according to these principles:

"Notice, Access and Choice -- Acxiom recognizes that individuals should be informed about how information about them is used and have choices about the dissemination of that information . . .

"'Acxiom displays on its website Access, Notice, and Choice provisions providing in pertinent part:

"'Notices should be provided that explain the collection, use and distribution of personally identifiable information. Most importantly, individuals should have the choice to opt out of the use of their data in marketing campaigns if they so desire. Similarly, Acxiom believes individuals should have access to information a company has about them that will be used for commercial reference purposes. Acxiom conforms to all legal and self-regulatory guidelines for providing an individual with notice, access and choice . . . . Acxiom does not provide any information, whether public or non-public, to individuals. Acxiom also does not allow our clients to make any non-public information available to an individual. Acxiom does allow our clients to make only public record and publicly available information available to individuals in the form of commonly used and accepted real estate research tools and public listing searches via the Internet. . . .'

"There is no evidence that Acxiom provided notice to or obtained the consent of any passengers whose personal information was sold to Torch Concepts for the purposes of the study. . . .

"Acxiom's sale of personal information to Torch Concepts violated its US privacy policy and Notice, Access, Choice provisions, and constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice in or affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)."

Now, how did Acxiom get this contract? Look toward a story buried on page A9 of the Saturday Sept. 27 Washington Post, where it is reported that Gen. Wesley Clark, who became a member of Acxiom's board after his retirement, went hard to work trying to increase the value of his share of stock in the firm by meeting "on the company's behalf with officials at the Department of Justice, the CIA, the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration and Lockheed Martin Corp., the defense contractor that is heading up CAPPS II."

That article also reported that back in January 2002, when TSA was still a part of the Department of Transportation, "In a meeting at the (DOT) in January 2002, according to participants, Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger." ((Excerpts from article provided below))

<snip>

http://www.nccprivacy.org/handv/031006villain.htm

The Privacy Villain of the Week and Privacy Hero of the Month are projects of the National Consumer Coalition's Privacy Group.

===


Clark Worked For Ark. Data Firm
Acxiom Role Part of Surveillance Debate
By Robert O'Harrow Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 27, 2003; Page A08


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>

In a meeting at the Department of Transportation in January 2002, according to participants, Clark described a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger.

With officials from an Acxiom partner sitting nearby, he explained that computers would examine the data -- massive amounts of information about housing, telephone numbers, car ownership and the like -- for subtle signs of terrorist intentions. The system would authenticate the identity of every passenger, he told the government officials at the meeting.

Implementation of CAPPS II has been delayed several times because of a mix of technological hurdles and concerns about its potential intrusiveness.

www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A7380-2003Sep26¬Found=true

[dfong63]

34. isn't it bad enough that Clark was blindly aiding and abetting this

... enterprise, supposedly without a full understanding of what they did and whether there were adequate checks?

Clark using the ignorance defense? excuses such as that one smell suspiciously like the "politician" Wes Clark claims not to be.

[boxster]

3. Do you not see the difference between "on the board" and

actively consulting and/or lobbying for a company?

If you have proof that Clark was actively working on the CAPPS II project or, for that matter, actively working on anything at Axciom during that period, please provide it.

Otherwise, "on the board" does not remotely connect Clark to actively working on the CAPPS II project.

Edit: "Furthermore, the Department of Homeland Security was actively seeking comments on the privacy issues of CAPPS II in 2003. While hundreds of groups and organizations submitted comments for the record, Clark was not among them. (6)"

If he was not involved in the CAPPS II project, how would he have enough information to comment on it? In a way, this indirectly refutes your assertion that he was involved. It certainly doesn't add credence to it.

[HFishbine]

8. You miss the issue

Clark admitted he was working on CAPPS II. That is not in question, even according to Clark.

The issue at hand is whether or not he offered a misleading excuse, that being his claim that he was not on the board of Acxiom "when this was going through" -- a claim clearly contradicted by the facts.

[mmonk]

10. So you are saying Clark was the director

of Acxiom and made its decisions? Are you saying he wasn't someone who was a facilitator or broker if you will? Are you saying he wasn't a consultant, but was a direct payroll employee?

[HFishbine]

13. No

It should be quite clear that what I am saying is that Clark misspoke when he said that he wasn't on the board when "all this was going through."

Anybody care to address the issue, maybe bring it to the attnetion of your guy, or would you rather see another ambush?

A DEBATE SCENARIO:

MODERATOR: General Clark, in New Hampshire, you said you would have addressed the privacy concerns of CAPPS II had you been on the Acxiom board when it was going through. Yet records show you, in fact, were on the board when it was going through. Did you mispeak, and if so, why didn't you address the privacy conerns raised by the ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and hundreds of citizens?

(get it?)

on edit, to answer a few other questions you raise: Yes, Clark was on the payroll of Axciom. He was no mere "friend" of Acxiom, he was a memeber of the board of directors (compensated monitarily and with stock options) and he was engaged in lobbying, hence the need to have registered as a lobbyists for Acxiom. Click a few links. The facts are clear.

[TorchTheWitch]

25. not really

It should be quite clear that what I am saying is that Clark misspoke when he said that he wasn't on the board when "all this was going through."

It's not misspeaking... he just didn't elaborate. Who are you to judge what he meant when he said when "all this was going through"?

As you have said yourself, Clark was a consultant/lobbyist for Acxiom. His job was to get the CAPPS II contract for Acxiom, which he did... it doesn't mean that he had anything further to do with the project. Just because he was on the board, doesn't mean he had anything else to do with the project, and in regard to what he was hired to do, and paid to do, he most probably would not. If you can come up with some proof that he was paid to WORK on the project after getting the contract up to the time he resigned, then you may have something... so far, there is no proof of that, which is perfectly in line with what he's been saying all along.

It would be very strange for a consultant/lobbyist to continue to work on a project once the contract is secured as that is not what their job is and not what they are paid to do. Acxiom hired and paid Clark to win government contracts for them... not ONE government contract. It seems fairly obvious that once the CAPPS II contract was secured for Acxiom, his next task would be to win some other contract for the company. At best, they may have gone back to him with questions about the CAPPS II project in his capacity as consultant, yet even before the contract was won, Clark had repeatedly stressed the privacy concerns about that contract... SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM??? Personally, I'm a hell of a lot more comfortable about the CAPPS II project when the contract was won by a lobbyist that actually gave a rat's ass about the privacy issues and repeatedly stressed that to the company.

http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/972597.asp
<snip>
Government and industry officials who have attended meetings with
Clark described him as thoughtful and persuasive. Jones, the
Acxiom official, said Clark repeatedly stressed the need to
"properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for
security." Jones said that was a core theme of Acxicom’s effort to
win government contracts.
<end snip>

Now, if at this point, you're still searching for some kind of smoking gun on this issue, oh well... you'll probably never be satisfied no matter what. Nice to see someone actually learned how to spell Acxiom properly, though.

[Eloriel]

28. Easily the best spin line of all time

Who are you to judge what he meant when he said ....

Seems to me being conversant in the language in which a statement is made qualifies one to judge the meaning.

YMMV. Obviously.

[TorchTheWitch]

31. ooooooooo, neato!

I just love it when an ignored person responds to one of my posts!

Hi Ignored Person! :hi:

[returnable]

18. "Clark admitted he was working on CAPPS II."

Really? When?

Clark actually said "I worked on CAPPS II"?

I'd like to see the quote, if you have one. Thanks :hi:

[HFishbine]

19. See the original post (nt)

And click on a few of the source links while your at it. Denial is not the way to address this.

[returnable]

21. I don't see any quote...

...where Clark says he worked on CAPPS II :shrug:

I'm not in denial - I'm looking for facts. Thanks, anyway :hi:

[HFishbine]

22. Manchester Union Leader

Maybe the Manchester Union Leader can make it clear:

The Post quoted unnamed “government and industry officials” in reporting that Clark had met on Acxiom’s behalf with officials of the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration and Lockheed Martin Corp.,” the defense contractor heading up CAPPS II (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System).

The Post said that in January 2002, Clark attended a meeting at the Transportation Department, at which he described “a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger” to detect “subtle signs of terrorist intentions.”

Yesterday, Acxiom confirmed that Clark worked on the CAPPS II program.

“The general did play a role in meeting the appropriate people and having dialogue that eventually resulted in our CAPPS II subcontract,” said Acxiom spokesman Dale Ingram. (1)

Now, care to address his misreprentation about what he would have done if he were on the Acxiom board when he was in fact on the Acxiom board?

(1) http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31778

[returnable]

23. "Acxiom confirmed that Clark worked on the CAPPS II program."

Well, that's different than Clark admitting he worked on the program, isn't it? That's the quote I'm looking for.

But as for Clark misspeaking on what he would've done while on the Board, hey, I have nothing to add on that. Looks like he screwed up.

It's not a deal-breaker for me. Thanks, anyway :hi:

[boxster]

33. Perhaps you should read your own arguments.

“The general did play a role in meeting the appropriate people and having dialogue that eventually resulted in our CAPPS II subcontract,”

Ok, so he got them the contract. So what? How do you equate that to your assertions that he worked on the project post-contract or that he had anything to do with the content of the output of that project?

If you're going to continue to post this stuff over and over, please be prepared to defend it. Claiming that he's responsible for CAPPS II when all he did was get people to hire Acxiom is intentionally misleading.

[boxster]

24. Links, please.

No, the issue at hand is that you have yet to provide any documentation whatsoever for your assertions. Do so, and this becomes a topic for conversation.

[Fleshdancer]

4. That's the first thing I asked when he gave his answer...

did Axiom really only start to work on CAPPS II after Clark left?

[demgrrrl2004]

7. What about the other candidates?

You know, Clark is the only candidate who has released all of his records to the public. I would be very interested to see what lobbying activity Edwards, Leiberman, and Kerry were involved in and what lobbyists they supported in the U.S. Senate. If Clark is scrutinized, then his opponents should be scrutinized, too.

[HFishbine]

11. Clark has released all his records? Really?

Clarks reading room offers "Lobbying Report for year-end 2003 for Wesley K. Clark" (1)

Yet only one page of this two-page document is online at the Clark site. (2)

What's on the missing page? The information that shows Clark was lobbying the Department of Homeland Security on matters of "Information transfers, airline security and Homeland Security issues." (3)

(1) http://www.clark04.com/readingroom/financial/lobby/

(2) http://www.clark04.com/readingroom/financial/lobby/index.php?page=lobby004

(3) sopr.senate.gov/2003/01/000/342/000342438.gif

[Eloriel]

30. Ohhh, they took a page from the George W. Bush

model of making your records open to the public. How interesting.

[boxster]

36. That is kind of funny coming from the supporter of a candidate

who hasn't released his records at all.

Which is worse, releasing partial information or releasing none of it?

Besides, as I pointed out to the poster, the documents are on a tab labeled "Financial Documents". I would expect that financial information be posted there. If page 2 contains no financial data, is there really a point to posting it there, or is it then a waste of bandwidth?

[boxster]

35. Well, gee, considering that it's on a tab labeled "Financial Documents",

the financial part of the report would be what should be there, hmm?

Geez. Besides, we all already know that he was lobbying for airline security and Homeland Security. Do you dispute that at the time of the lobbying that these were important issues?

Lastly, you STILL have yet to provide any documentation whatsoever showing that Clark was involved in anything other than securing the contract initially.

[bearfartinthewoods]

12. there is absolutely no argument that moves me less than

what about the other guys...

[HFishbine]

14. It doesn't bother you

that a candidate says he would have done something if only he had been in a position that he in fact was in?

[democratreformed]

15. I agree and I am

looking for information. I will get back to you when I understand it better.

[TexasSissy]

9. I've wrestled with the CAPPS issue and asked some independent

voters.

The independents didn't think it was any big deal. I, a Clark supporter, actually gave it more weight than they did (probably I'm more liberal than the independents, although I'm a moderate, I think), but I decided that in the end, there was nothing wrong with anything that Clark did.

[papau]

27. Folks do not know how lobbying works -the tech expert is in the background

The front guy gets the appointment at which he hands over the Tech papers and gets a promise that someone will read it. As Clark said - he was made pretty by being put on the Board, but his job was as a "consultant with Acxiom -- and I was on the board of the company, and I did take them around and introduce them to various members of the United States government, the Defense Department and so forth, because their technology will improve our security.", but folks, he did this for every product they were trying to sell - so he is the expert or the designer, or even a reviewer of every product sold?

Clark could easily say he knew next to nothing except that the product would per Acxiom increase security - and be telling the truth (what a concept). How does Clark meeting "on Acxiom’s behalf with officials of the Department of Transportation, the Transportation Security Administration and Lockheed Martin Corp.,” the defense contractor heading up CAPPS II (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System)." change the above.

Indeed the job of the lobbyist is to get meetings - so he attended a meeting at the Transportation Department, at which he described “a system that would combine personal data from Acxiom with information about the reservations and seating records of every U.S. airline passenger” to detect “subtle signs of terrorist intentions.” as perAcxiom script - and is suppose to mean he "worked on the CAPPS II program" beyond what the Wash Post article limits his work to - namely "a role in meeting the appropriate people and having dialogue that eventually resulted in our CAPPS II subcontract,”????

(1) http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=31778

Man - we are stretching for dirt -

[TexasSissy]

38. Ohhhhhh. I get it, now. That really IS nothing bad.

But I knew that, anyway. :)

(That's my man! Go, Wes!)

[Clark Can WIN]

26. Just because you are registered does not mean you are active

Just because I hold a drivers licence for 4 years does not prove I drove anywhere in the last six months.

Clark's statement tells me that he was no longer active towards the period of time in question.

Why remain formally but absent on the board? Paycheck most likely. He may have been told (as is fairly common) that he could remain for a period of time in case he wished to return.

My speculation is just as valid as yours.


I just don't think the average voter gives a shit about axiom or is likely to view it as a deal breaker. I don't hear a giant knashing and wailing "OH NO, WHAT DO YOU MEAN HE WAS INVOLVED WITH IMPROVING AIRPORT SECURITY???????? OH.........THE HUMANITY.......I CAN'T TALK NOW LADIES AND GENTLEMEN..... THIS IS JUST TERRIBLE....AAAHHHGH.

[John_H]

32. Bottom line: The right wing fears Clark, loves Dean.

They asked about Acxiom last night to help Dean, and I don't blame you for trying to capitalize upon here. After all, they brought it up for the Dean Camp to use.

But the GOP also knows that Acxiom is chicken feed compared to Chimp's connections with the military industrial complex. They won't be able to hit him on it in the general election, and they know it.

Dean supporters intent on going down with their ship are going to after Clark. If Fox news can help, they'll take it. That's how politics works.

The problem is that well read Dems know that Clark's lobbying is nothin' compared to Dean's Enron assistance and snowy Bermuda creating.

But, just think, when Clark is the guy doing battle with the Chimp, Dean can unseal his records and Acxiom will join the good Dr. as a non-issue.

[overground1]

37. I felt Edwards was slamming Clark surreptitiously - "lobbyists corrupting"

Washington, and about the revolving door in government and lobbyists.
Did anyone else pick up on this too?