Eugene weekly., July 20, 2006, Page 4, Image 4

BY CAROL VAN HOUTEN
The Collectors
Military builds database of our children.
O
ur youth are distressingly vulnerable. Suzanne Swift (the local young woman
trying to get out of the Army because of the stress of war and sexual harass-
ment) got recruited to the military in the way that too many are: Not having
a clear alternative plan for her next step in life, she fell for the military recruiter’s lies
and misinformation. She was offered a “deal.” For enlisting for five years in the Army
as an MP (military police), she would not go to Iraq but would get the usual “goodies”
the recruiters promote such as money for college.
Little did she know that there are two sorts of MPs — some police military bases
while some police checkpoints in Iraq. Little did she know that she would be subjected
to constant sexual harassment. Since recruiter promises and enlistment contracts
cannot be relied upon, she was very shortly in Iraq.
Young people are vulnerable in another way that is little known: the Pentagon col-
lects data on them.
Without Congressional authorization, the Pentagon has a database estimated to
include 90 to 95 percent of all males and females, ages 16 to 25. Though in existence
since 2002, knowledge of this database only became public a year ago. The reason
for this database: to improve military recruiting capability.
Data gathered include: name, address, email address, phone and cell phone num-
bers, Social Security number, ethnicity, schools attended, areas of study, birthdate, if
males have registered with Selective Service, plus much more. Data comes in from a
wide variety of sources such as drivers’ license processing, high school and college re-
lease of data (unless students opt out), PSAT and SAT scores (unless students refuse
release to the military) and the ASVAB (a military entrance and job placement test),
unless schools refuse release of data to the military. The Pentagon contracts with a
private marketing firm, BeNow, owned by Equifax, a credit rating company, to run the
database and to sweep the Internet for information, a task marketing firms are skilled
at doing. Youth are often readily persuaded to release private information on the
Internet.
A
larmed yet? It gets worse. Youth can contact this database, the Joint
Advertising and Marketing Research and Studies office (JAMRS) at 4040 N.
Fairfax Drive, Ste. 200, Arlington, VA 22203 to stop JAMRS from mailing
military recruiting materials, but they cannot remove themselves or any of their data
from the database — or even correct inaccurate information, if they somehow know
data is inaccurate.
Even more alarmed? It gets worse. Data can be released to national or interna-
tional law enforcement agencies, tax authorities and many others without notice of
the release. And there is no provision for this database to end at age 26.
Of the five largest events of compromised personal data, two were lost to hacking,
three to stolen or lost backup data (New York Times, 5/23). Hacking and theft clearly
occur to both governmental and commercial databases. This database exists in both
realms, being run by a commercial company which sweeps the Internet daily for infor-
mation and conveys it to the Pentagon on a weekly basis.
This Pentagon database — at the moment confined to youth, but having no end
date — seems on track to become a permanent database on everyone. How attractive
to identity thieves is a database with the key information of Social Security numbers,
plus birthdates, plus lots of personal information?
It seems to me that the general public is far too silent and accepting of govern-
mental invasions of our privacy, especially when such invasions are done in the name
of fighting the “war on terror” or in the name of facilitating military recruitment.
Now that our youth — as young at 16 — are in such an extensive, invasive, unneeded
and probably illegal database — for the stated reason of facilitating military recruiting,
are we ready to stand up and speak out loudly in protest? How many more Suzanne
Swifts will it take?
Please call our senators and representatives to tell them to take action to end this
database.
Carol Van Houten is co-coordinator of the Committee for Countering Military Recruitment, a joint project of
CALC and Eugene Peaceworks, which works to get out information that military recruiters fail to convey to
youth.
TO THE EDITOR
RETURN THE FAVOR
Measure 37 is not about fairness. It is about
greed and opportunity. The opportunity to
wholly dismantle the regulations that for more
than 30 years have protected Oregon’s resource
lands and natural beauty from the feeding
frenzy of callous exploitation rampant in other
states. And its chief financial backers, the tim-
ber, real estate and construction companies,
have begun to call the debt.
The recent Wildish and Lone Rock Timber
Company claims for $15 million and $11 mil-
lion, respectively, are just a hint of what’s to
come from Seneca-Jones, Weyerhaeuser and
other long-term corporate landholders. It’s cer-
tainly predictable, but is it fair for a corporation
that has made a fortune from public contracts by
extracting gravel and then harvesting timber
from land it picked up for a dime to capitalize
yet again by being permitted to turn resource
land into gentleman estates?
Every year one of the local TV stations airs a
Wildish video of pristine natural landscapes
called “Hasn’t God Been Good to Oregon.” I’ll
not presume to speak for God, but without ques-
tion, the cities of Eugene and Springfield, Lane
County and the state have been very good to
Wildish. We can only hope that the Wildish
family will see fit to return the favor and, for a
reasonable price, if not a charitable donation,
make their 1,400 acres of oak and fir woodland
overlooking the Middle Fork of the Willamette
River a part of Buford Park-Mount Pisgah and
the public trust.
Robert Emmons
Fall Creek
INACCURATE REPORT
Eugene Weekly is an important alternative
source of information and perspective for local
issues. However, its credibility is compromised
when the information reported is grossly inac-
curate. Alan Pittman’s article in the July 13
issue titled “LCOG’S Fat” is full of false infor-
mation and assertions.
The LCOG executive director’s salary pack-
age is about $123,000, which is 25 percent less
than the $164,000 stated in the article. For com-
parison’s sake, this is substantially less than the
compensation of the city managers of Eugene
4 JULY 20, 2006
and Springfield and the county administrator.
It is misleading to imply that LCOG is less
accountable to taxpayers. LCOG does not cre-
ate or collect taxes. Almost all of the revenue
that LCOG receives is for specific contracts,
which makes it very accountable to the govern-
ments that are receiving the services.
Additionally, the quotation of the total travel
budget implied it was excessive. LCOG’s single
largest travel expense is for Senior & Disabled
staff to visit people that need care that do not
have mobility, an expense that is necessary to
provide needed services to the elderly and dis-
abled.
The concluding sentence of the article stated
that “LCOG staff recommended that LCOG
threaten to seize control of the required local ap-
proval of the West Eugene Parkway.” The accu-
rate report is that members of the LCOG Board,
all elected officials, assumed their responsibil-
ity to ensure that the metro area continues to re-
ceive federal money for transportation projects.
The board’s action was not about the WEP.
The real question is why would a publica-
tion that makes Eugene a better place by provid-
ing detailed information about local issues try to
discredit a public agency by publishing mis-
leading information? LCOG does not have tax-
ing authority and exists to provide cost effective
services to local governments as well as the eld-
erly and disabled citizens of Lane County. EW
loses credibility by blatantly misreporting infor-
mation and making unfounded and inaccurate
assertions.
Robert Swank & Warren Roe
Eugene
EDITORS NOTE: Salary numbers, including benefits, are
from page 40 of LCOG’s 2006-07 Work Program and
Budget.
FEAR FACTOR
Dear EWEB: What’s with the barricades? I
thought you were going through a strike, not a
siege. Union fangs that produced bloody strikes
like the Longshoremen Strike in 1934, the
image your fences invoke, were pulled long ago
and history tells that provocation was shared by
both sides in that era of labor history. I assume
you’re not up to shenanigans so what is it?
Don’t you trust the folks you hired? What is the