Criminal intelligence data or control files? New BCA proposal offers glimpse of major expansion in snooping

“Criminal intelligence data may be shared with: …(2) a law enforcement agency to charge a person with a crime or allege that a juvenile is delinquent…” That’s the best schoolmarm line from a wild new bill emanating from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA). One could imagine law enforcement wants to finally comb through all those darn pot-smoking kids on MySpace. In fact, in this bill, they’d apparently get open license to do so.

A plan to redefine statewide law enforcement intelligence-gathering has emerged in the form of Sen. Don Betzold’s (DFL-Fridley) aptly titled Criminal Intelligence Data bill (SF1103, no House version). SF1103 offers to redefine the state’s fundamental perception of its citizens (as well as economic security), by reorganizing and redefining “criminal intelligence data” concerning “terrorist activity,” and likely expanding the maintenance of personal information. Blogger Eric Pusey broke the story; now we’ve found where the bill came from.

Betzold tells PIM that he was sent the bill by the BCA around a week ago; essentially, it’s an agency bill, and if there are issues with it, they’ll get their time in committee. It’s currently in Judiciary and likely to spend time in the Data Practices subcommittee (possibly on Wednesday at 6 p.m., a source tells us). He says that a group of people mostly from BCA worked it out over the interim and talked to him late last year. He’ll work on getting the bill through the Senate process, but adds he has nothing to do with shopping the bill to possible House authors.

BCA Director Tim O’Malley tells PIM that his agency wasn’t trying to slip anything past anyone; they’ve already sent it around. Rather, he says people at his agency sincerely want people to look at the balance between privacy and security; it’s the

No Responses to “Criminal intelligence data or control files? New BCA proposal offers glimpse of major expansion in snooping”

1. Anonymous Says:
   March 21st, 2009 at 1:04 pm

   SF1103 is troubling on SO many levels, but for the sake of brevity, I’ll pick one.

   In the third paragraph, the article states, “Betzold tells PIM that he was sent the bill by the BCA around a week ago; essentially, it’s an agency bill, and if there are issues with it, they’ll get their time in committee.”

   EXCUSE ME??? An “agency” bill? Since WHEN does Senator Betzold (or any OTHER Senator or Representative) represent the GOVERNMENT, instead of WE THE PEOPLE???

   First, the government (the bureaucracy) has NO business proposing legislation; ESPECIALLY legislation that expands its control and authority over its sovereign citizens (can you say “conflict of interest”? I KNEW you could). Secondly, any elected official who would even entertain the idea of considering (let alone sponsoring) legislation proposed by the government demonstrates a glaring lack of understanding of the principles of Liberty upon which this nation was founded, and should IMMEDIATELY be impeached and removed from office (if not prosecuted). Third, any government that passes laws that are a violation of the contract of Liberty (the Constitution) between that government and its citizens (i.e., government’s function is to protect our borders, and defend Liberty), nullifies that contract, and the citizens have no imperative to comply with the unconstitutional law.

   So, we have an agency of the government (i.e., THE government) proposing a law that would expand its power and authority over the citizens to whom that government is SUPPOSED to be accountable, subservient, and represent–in a completely backwards political model–and people WONDER why gun and ammunition sales have been, and are, going through the roof?

   Gregory K. Sloat
   Columbia Heights
   trumpet@minn.net