Clark's Lobbying for Domestic Spy Firm - Any Answers?

[HFishbine]

Clark supporters, you can either flame me for bringing up what I honestly consider a serious question about Clark, or you can help me to undertand why this issue is no reason to exclude Clark from consideration.
---------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7380-2003Sep26.html

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.

As a consultant, he helped the company win a government contract worth an undisclosed amount to provide data and consulting services to the CAPPS II program. CAPPS II is the second-generation computer-assisted passenger screening system, a network that Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta once described as "the foundation" on which all other, far more public aviation security measures depend.

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.

http://arstechnica.com/archive/news/1063079132.html
CAPPS II: Return of the Son of TIA?
Posted 09/08/2003 @ 10:45 PM, by Hannibal

What could have motivated these ideologically disparate advocates to put aside their differences and join forces? The answer is CAPPS II, the air-passenger vetting protocols that the Transportation Security Administration hopes to deploy early next year. By electronically mining commercial and government databases, CAPPS II -- the "computer-assisted passenger prescreening system," version 2 -- will perform instant criminal background checks on everyone boarding an airplane in the United States. It's at once an Orwellian prospect and a potential gold mine for the travel industry: A database of the type envisioned by the government would allow hotels and airlines to get their hands on your lifetime itinerary.

Results of the background check are intended to be used to determine who gets to sail through airport screening, who is accorded greater scrutiny, and who is barred from flying at all. "CAPPS II will ensure that passengers do not sit next to known terrorists and wanted murderers," the TSA said in a recent press release. The agency also insists that CAPPS II won't be intrusive -- the system, it says, "reflects American values, and respects the rights and privacy of the traveling public."...

For CAPPS II to work, the system would need to know four bits of information about you -- your name, date of birth, home address and phone number. According to Bill Scannell, a journalist who now spends his time trying to thwart CAPPS II -- he is the man behind Boycott Delta and Don't Spy On.Us, two CAPPS II-protest sites -- once this data is associated with your itinerary, private firms (such as the airlines and hotels) will be able to keep lifetime dossiers of everywhere you travel. Every time you take a flight, every time you check into a hotel, every time you rent a car -- all your data will be entered into your permanent travel record, a file that would be available to travel-industry businesses (for marketing purposes) and to the government (for purposes even more nefarious than marketing).

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,60157,00.html
Despite the typical August slowdown in Washington, D.C., critics have been heating up efforts to halt or modify a new airline passenger-screening program that would set up a comprehensive internal border-control system to catch potential hijackers and those accused of violent crimes.

In a televised Monday morning press conference hosted by the American Civil Liberties Union, an ideologically diverse coalition of activist groups ranging from the NAACP to the anti-big-government group Americans for Tax Reform jointly criticized the proposed Computerized Airline Passenger Pre-Screening System II, or CAPPS II.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, called CAPPS II part of "a series of police power and informational privacy power grabs that flowed from Sept. 11."

Norquist's criticism may signal trouble for CAPPS II -- he is known for his influential, well-attended weekly Washington get-togethers where tax reformers, conservative Christian groups and anti-gun-control groups meet with congressional and White House staffers to strategize and coordinate efforts.

Nearly all of the speakers at Monday's conference accused the proposed system of "mission creep," pointing to a provision to screen passengers for outstanding warrants for violent crimes . Several also suggested the system would eventually lead to the creation of a national identification card.

[OKNancy]

1. No flame----but this is really getting old

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=428674#428678

please go here.

[bearfartinthewoods]

2. a prediction....

oppps...premature e-postulation

i predict that no one will actually deal with the question. if this goes the way many of the others have, it will be disrupted, either intentionally or accidently by whines about the bashing.

someone will post an untrue satement.
someone will rebut the untrue statement.

someone will accuse the poster of bashing and on and on and on.

one suggestion...stick with the question....hack it out for good or ill. don't participate in changing the subject to the generic conflict re clark vrs dean supporters flame war.

if the questions are never actaully dealt with they will be repeated over and over.

[HFishbine]

3. Although

I don't understand how lobbying for "free" would somehow mitigate his involvement. You are incorrect. He was paid. See form above.

[OKNancy]

5. Excuse me?

Please read the rebuttal that I linked. I didn't write it.
It's a non-issue to me and I'm not interested in responding.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Enough Is Enough Is Enough

The overt slams.....

The covert slams.....

The slams masquerading as innocent questions....

The innuendoes

I can't take anymore.....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I'm Beginning To Get So Turned Off By This Board....

I'd rather peruse the NYT Jets site and I am a die hard Miami Dolphins fan....

[bearfartinthewoods]

7. see? see how soon it begins?

if you are tired of these threads, don't click on them.
if you are tired of this board, go talk football.
Skinner has repetedly said that this is a political dioscussion board so please forgive us if some people want to discuss political candidates.

i'm starting to see the whining about the discussions as repressive in nature. it only postpones the inevitable. sooner or later these things must be hashed out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. It's Been Dicussed Ad Nauseum....

[jonnyblitz]

9. you would think that one of you Clark supporters would compile

a thread with rebuttals to all the charges and when somebody asks the same question that has been asked over and over you respond with a link to the rebuttal thread instead of hissing at the people who ask . Not everybody is glued to DU 24/7.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. You Are Assuming I'm A Clark Supporter

I have spoken favorably of Clark, Edwards, Sharpton, Kucininich, Moseley Braun, Graham, and Lieberman at one time or another though I do like some more than others....

I'm just tired of all the pissing matchs but I guess some folks are into different kinds of water sports....

on edit-I forgot Dean and Kerry .....

[KittyWampus]

12. Jonnyblitz, Pepperbelly Was Doing A Compiliation

and there are several other threads where supporting positions have been posted on Clark. :)

Do you have Search function capability on DU?

Just type in "Clark"

You'll see a tremendous number of threads, manywith flamebait titles... and most have cogent rebuttals.

[bicentennial_baby]

13. Only people who donate

can use "Search"

[Cat M.]

31. Something like this you mean?

http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/

Feel free to post links to it anywhere and everywhere.

Unfortunately the attacks come so fast it's difficult to reply to all of them. I'm only one person...

[bearfartinthewoods]

10. where? give me a link?

i spent some time this early AM, slogging throught the weekends threads looking for some answers. if there is a response from the Clark campaign as to why he continues to sit on the board or why, as a menber of the board, as one of the bosses of this company, they pursued this course, i mossed it.

i value my privacy. i have fought against capps and other intrusions which were inflicted on us post 911. i'd like to hear a cogent explaination on this issue. if i missed one, just point me to it!

[seventhson]

15. How can it be "OLD" when the press/Clarkers have practically buried it???

People are just learning of this story.

A few here have actually discussed it.

But this is NOT a mainstream story yet and NEEDS to be discussed.

The Clarkers here do NOT want it disucssed so they act like it is old news

Why not try to DEFEND his flirtation with the fascists???

[kodi]

14. from the grave george orwell salutes your misuse of the english lanuage

verbal molotov cocktails

[seventhson]

16. Another non-substantive response. I HAVE AN IDEA!!!

Since the real intention of this post is to DISCUSS this issue and the Clarkers are unable to substantively rebut it or respond to it, LET's all just let our hair down here and say what needs to be said about it:

THIS evidence demonstrates to me (THAT'S MY OPINION) that Clark is a fascist scumbag for the right wing. He NEVER left the republican party and his competition with Bush is JUST THAT: a Republican Pentagonian competition with Bush.

The Pentagon folks HATE Bush/Rummie et al. But that is because they are lining their own pockets and they are f*cking up the military.

But FOLKS we are about a 1/16th of an inch away from a total fascist takeover in this country if it hasn't happened already. If youy are unfamiliar with the Nazis takeover of Germany I highly recommend "Der Fuehrer" by Konrad Heiden

NOW we are going to elect a REPUBLICAN PENTAGON INSIDER as a DEMOCRAT??? Is THIS what the Clarkers want???

This is Bullshit. Clark's record is Bullshit. He's a corporate military whore.

Why beat around the BUSH???

eom

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[seventhson]

22. Actually that is not true

Someone else posted the link.

I posted a new thread using the link.

And I am not the only one who has posted the link to the Cohen article either.

The information on Clark and the Haitians issue has NOT been completely refuted and, though some of the information in the article seems to be inaccurate - some of it IS accurate.

So it is a story which requires further information before one should ridicule it.

[kodi]

23. i can ridicule the ridiculous. and you did post it.

and in that thread you were proven so wrong by Duers who were medical experts.

that you continue to stress that clark was responsible is the nonesense which is your core value

[Eloriel]

21. It's actually worse than that, Seventhson

I just posted this on a thread in LBN. I'll post it here too:

Clark has been put in the race specifically to stop Dean, by other Democrats. And it's NOT because Dean is unelectable - it's precisely because he IS electable AND the movement that has formed around him, which is intent on "taking back our country" from ALL the special interests and putting it in the hands, for the first time in a very long while, of THe People.

He's raising his money from small donors -- people like you and me. He's running a grassroots, Open Source iterative Presidential Campaign in which he and his campaign listen carefully, respond and adopt the ideas of his supporters -- people like you and me. He's not bought, he's not handled, he's free and able to respond to The People. He is revitalizing the democratic process itself, and it's very scary for some who do not want to let go of THEIR power (which isn't The People's Power).

So he has become unbelievably dangerous for those who do NOT want to let go of their power and influence -- the DNC, the DLC, and people like the Clintons.

I should've paid attention when Bill Clinton said a few weeks ago that "there are two stars in the Democratic Party -- Hillary Clinton and Wesley Clark." I should've listend when Hillary gave a glowing review of Clark to a reporter, but said, "but this isn't an endorsement, I can't endorse anyone." I should've paid attention when Howard Fineman wrote a column about the Stop Dean effort in the party. But when Clark finally announced and then shortly thereafter I heard him spouting some DLC talking points, and THEN it was revealed that not only was Clinton "encouraging him to run," but a bunch of ex-Clinton aides and campaign workers had joined his campaign, I got it.

Bill Clinton does NOT have the right to pick our nominee for us, especially when he's thwarting the will of the people to do so. I have been increasingly "over" the Clintons (and Bill IS the only Republican I ever voted for), but this little move clinches it for me. He is NOT a friend of democracy, AFIC, or The People. And he needs to get the hell out of this primary race. Period.

Eloriel

[bitchkitty]

17. I too would like answers -

but every time I ask a question about Clark, I'm either referred to a web page other than his official site (which doesn't answer my question) or told that I've swallowed right wing talking points hook line and sinker.

I'm with you on Clark - I don't want a war dog in office.

[seventhson]

19. It is a very well orchestrated campaign

with military precision

I wonder why

[imhotep]

18. If you are looking for objective answers

about a particular candidate, it is probably best to not seek them from supporters of that candidate. One thing I have learned from politics is that most criticisms of every candidate and every party are usually true.

[LoneStarLiberal]

24. A Clark Supporter Who Says To You "Good Job"

This is an interesting post and an exemplary one as well. While I do support Clark and this doesn't change my mind about my choice, I think contributions like this are very germane and very much NEEDED. So much of what goes on here at DU that degenerates into "I know you are but what am I" flaming is started on articles claiming to be factual journalism when in fact they are based on nothing more than conspiracy conjecture and rabid opinion.

The articles you site are all reputable (Washington Post, Ars Technica, Wired) and they do point toward an ominous sign of mission creep in the CAPPS program.

Since I can't speak for Wes Clark or his campaign, I obviously can't give you the official answer. My personal impression is that at the time he lobbied for this I imagine the potential misuse of this information had not been accurately discussed by the participants in this project (misuses and failures rarely are).

Acxiom is based in Little Rock. Wes Clark lives in Little Rock. This is a lucrative government contract where their expertise in data management, databases, and information management would seem ideally suited to the job at hand.

While I respectfully disagree that Clark's lobbying for a hometown firm equates to his embracing every potential malicious option of this entire sprawling program, I applaud your grounding of your concern in the contexts of serious reporting.

[Zorra]

51. That is a very

reasonable and intelligent response to this post. Democracy depends on free discussion of credible information, and should never be stifled by those who want to squash free discussion because their beliefs are challenged.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.":dem:Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

25. REBUTTAL (YET AGAIN)

This is the third or more time this has been posted in the last 48 hours.

Anyway, I have known for some time that Clark has lobbied the military and the government on programs that he believes in (including ALTERNATIVE ENERGY BICYCLES, for Pete's sake), and I do not begrudge for one moment the fact that he is paid for his introduction services. He has a valuable commodity and is compensated for it. It is no surprise to anyone that his most valuable commodities are in the military, where he spent his entire career. If he'd wanted to, he could have become a complete whore and lobbied for weapons systems, he could have immersed himself on K Street. But he didn't do that.

As for CAPPS II, the person in charge of the program is LOYAL DEMOCRAT Norm Mineta, the head of the Department of Transportation. As a Japanese American, he was INTERNED in an American concentration camp during WWII, and so I think this is one man who has just a wee bit of knowledge of and concern for the issue of imposing on civil liberties.

Clark obviously believed in this program enough to work FOR FREE on it (something which can be verified easily, I imagine, as Acxiom is a public company), and he obviously took a balanced view of it:

"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 Acxiom's effort to win government contracts."

If we have to have lobbyists at all, I think that describes exactly the sort of lobbyist we want. I also think that CAPPS II is a potentially important and useful program. With Norm Mineta overseeing the decision, I feel confident that it will be fine.

I also note that people who are in favor of gun registration and background checks also should not have much of a problem with this program in concept, IMO.

Finally, Clark is also a critic of the USA PATRIOT Act, and he has actually read all 1200 pages, apparently three times (unlike all of our legislators, who apparently passed it without even having TIME to read it all, practically). I'm comfortable with his positions here, and I'm not at all fazed by the news that he (gasp) actually used his military connections.

DTH

[DoveTurnedHawk]

26. ANOTHER REBUTTAL

I just love how all of the anti-Clark people raising oft-repeated questions suddenly stop responding to the thread as soon as a pro-Clark POV is raised.

But I'm sure we'll get more of this BS, with even more shrill claims of, "How come no Clark supporter can respond to this, huh, huh?"

:eyes:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/

DTH

[returnable]

27. I predict this thread...

...will sink like a stone thanks to you, DTH.

Of course, another will just pop up in its place in about, oh, the time it takes for me to finish typing this sentence.

So I'll just :kick: this back up, so folks can read your links. Again. Cuz they seem to keep missing them.

Tip of the cap to you, DTH

:toast:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

28. Fascinating, Innit? (eom)

DTH

[Cat M.]

29. Get Off the Anti-Clark Bandwagon!

It's not good for the democratic party, particularly if Clark does secure the nomination, which is always a possibility. Conservatives are noticing the internal 'squabbling' and it's diminishing the democratic candidates in a lot of people's eyes.

I have currently devoted my blog to debunking the Clark myths. I will address some here.

Regarding Acxiom: The information Acxiom provided to the government is all information that was legally obtained, most of which the government already had access to if it chose. There was nothing secret in any of the information. WE should be concerned about what the BUSH administration wants to do with that information, not the fact that Acxiom has agreed to provide it. If it wasn't acxiom, it would be Oracle (who has already provided such info) or one of a half a dozen other companies that maintain consumer databases. Conversely, the government could do the task of compiling the information itself, only it would cost us taxpayers more.

As to the Haitian allegations, they are really reaching. I actually wrote the Miami lawyer, Ira Kurzban, that most of the articles refer to and he said:

"The gyneacomastia issues arose in 1981 as a result of INS detention policies at Krome with Haitians. The Guantanamo detentions began in 1991 after the Sept 30, 1991 coup against Aristide. If Clark was running the camps, which is quite possible, I was unaware of it. My involvement with him concerned the US "invasion" of Haiti in 1994. He was involved in the planning phase."

So if people are concerned about the planning of the Haiti invasion, they can look into it, but if he had anything to do with the camps Kurzban has no information on it despite the gobs of information he received in pursuing his lawsuit. His "which is quite possible" stems from nothing other than his dislike of Clark over the Haiti invasion since he admits he has no evidence to suggest it. Since at least one of the camps was run by the Air Force, it's highly unlikely.

And remember the whole Middle Eastern think tank scandal?

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1063836611999

There's Clark's source--a man from a Canadian middle eastern think tank. George Will should apologize. I'm amazed he couldn't locate any Canadian middle eastern think tanks. I was able to locate several with a quick Google search, including the Canadian Institute
for Jewish Research (http://www.isranet.org which explicitly
identifies itself as "a unique, independent academic think-tank."

These slings and arrows are nothing more than products of overactive imaginations running the same kind of smear campaign they ran against Al Gore. They pound the falsehoods until they stick in everyone's minds and never make retractions even when the facts come in and the facts get little attention. We need to fight these kind of tactics against ALL our democratic candidates, not endorse it by participating in the squabbling.

Oh and Clark was a registered Democrat in 2000 when he voted in the Arkansas primary. He could not have voted in it had he not been registered as a democrat.

[Cat M.]

30. Oops.

Sorry, my reply wasn't to you in particular. I am new here and put it in the wrong place.

I'll be more careful in the future.

[HFishbine]

32. Missing the Point in Order to Deny Reality

Your missing the point. I had high hopes for Clark. While I was never a Clark supporter, I have frequently suggested that he be considered as a VP candidate.

You can dismiss this question as an "anti-Clark" slam, but you do so at your own peril. If this middle-aged independent voter is telling you he once found Clark promising, but now cannot find an adequate explaination for this lobbying activity, you can either dismiss me as an abberation, or you can consider the possibility that I won't be the last to ask about it. Who would you rather test out the explainations on, fellow liberals or Karl Rove?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

34. Nice Non-Response to the Substantive Points Raised in the Rebuttals (eom)

DTH

[HFishbine]

36. Chill

Dude, I'm waiting for more that two that have substance. If that's all that ultimatley materialize, I'll respond to those. But for now, I'm hoping there will be a stronger rebuttal than what has appeared so far.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

37. Just as I Thought, You're One of Those Who Will Never Be Satisfied

Maybe you should try responding to the many points, rather than protesting about the dearth of responses to this dead horse.

DTH

[Cat M.]

38. Okay, how about this one?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=429156&mesg_id=430634&page=

And there you will find a link for my blog, which someone has already posted here which goes into lengthy detail. I'd say it's pretty substantive. I'd love to hear your response after actually reading it.

[Rose Siding]

33. Mineta has Dem opposition on this

so his seal of approval doesn't remove q's about the program, imo

snip>
The proposed airline profiling program CAPPS II (for Computer Assisted Passenger Profiling System) would make every American a suspect.

This program would give the government a new role unprecedented in American life: running background checks on Americans who fly, and giving them a “risk score.” Secretive, lacking due process protections for people who are unfairly tagged, and yet easy for terrorists to circumvent, this program once put in place will grow into a most un-American system of internal border controls.

http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13453&c=130


Wednesday's compromise bill, which provides $29.4 billion for Homeland Security, would prohibit the deployment of the system until the GAO study is completed on Feb. 15, 2004.

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-West Virginia), who is the ranking member on the appropriations committee, said he was pleased with the recommendation for further study.

"CAPPS II has raised many questions about individuals' privacy rights," Byrd said. "This is an important endeavor for homeland security. But there are many troubling questions raised by such a system, not least of which is what information will the government use to determine threat level."

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,60600,00.html

It looks like that, though the sale/profit was made, "deployment" is being delayed.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

35. Again, I Think Mineta Knows More About Overreaching Government

Trying to impose on civil liberties than about 98% of society. I trust him to take a balanced view. While I love the ACLU, they tend to take an extremist view of issues like these. That's their raison d'etre, in fact.

As for Byrd, he hardly sounds like the anti-CAPPS partisan here.

In fact, he sounds just like Clark.

DTH

[Blue_Chill]

39. What is the problem?

You don't like advanced security systems, or you don't like lobbyists?

I really don't see what the problem is here. Unless of course you out there on the internet think the idea of data being stored on what you do all the time is a new one. Do you know you all have spyware on your PC's that at this very moment are beaming all sorts of info about you to a variety of places?

As technology advances so will tracking abilities of businesses. Wake up folks, you are in Kansas anymore and you are being tracked all the time.

[Cat M.]

40. So Fishbine

I've responded to you three times and you fail to address my arguments yet you continue to suggest that nobody is countering your accusations. I countered it and fairly effectively.

Why did you ask the question if you really didn't want to listen to the answers?

[HFishbine]

46. I'm sorry

I did not respond in your expected time frame. Please see post #45 below.

[Cocoa]

41. I hope Clark answers this issue at length

so far he has chosen not to comment, which is not a good sign, from my point of view.

It adds to my concern that Clark might turn out to be another "none of your business" type of president.

I'd like to hear Clark give a philosophical explanation of how he chose to work for this company, given his stated values about the importance of privacy rights. I'd like to hear what kind of decision-making process he went through at that time.

I'm keeping an open mind that he will be able to do this. The sooner the better, imo.

[Pepperbelly]

42. A detailed respose to the original post.

To go straight into the matter, I first must determine what it is that you find unsettling about CAPPS II AND Wesley Clark's involvement. As noted, Wesley was, for a period of time, a Lobbyist for Acxiom. Of course, high ranking government officials often find employment in the private sector in areas relevant to their government expertise. For Wesley Clark, the high rank and connections with decision-makers in government was a given due to his long service in the Army.

So what sort of company is Acxiom?

For starters, Acxiom started in business taking public information such as phone book, digitalized the data and then sold the 'lists' to direct mail and telemarketing concerns. I think some people call what Acxiom does "data mining." The information is all obtained in lawful fashion from public sources. Although you may have a problem with this sort of business, what the company does is completely legal with no violations of relevant privacy statutes. Over the years, with the advent of the internet, the amount of data accessable to the public grew by leaps and bounds and so did Acxiom.

In the case of CAPPS II, Acxiom provided data that it had mined so that the CAPPS II routine could be tested, just like before any big system goes online they are tested. Acxiom was not the only aggregator of data to act as vender in this program. Both Nexis-Lexis and Experian' provided data as well.

In Acxiom's response to the lawsuit filed in the CAPPS II/ Jetblu lawsuit, they have stated that Wesley Clark was not involved in procuring the contract for Acxiom. At this point, that position is one 'on the record' in court pleadings.

In addition, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, there was an absolute demand for technological solutions for pre-flight screening of passengers. Considering what had just occurred, IMO, the idea was not a bad one.

Go to Acxiom's web site and check out the company:

http://www.acxiom.com/

This is what they do and what they do is not only legal but of assistence to business and to government. I do not think Clark owes anyone an apology for this.

[Zorra]

52. What sort of company is Acxiom?

I found this information months ago, and am not sure I can find the link to it.

Acxiom (ACXM)
Data mining
Conway, Arkansas
FY 98 sales $465.1 million
Five-year average sales growth 32.5%
FY 98 earnings (net margin) $35.6 million (7.7%)
Five-year average return on equity 17.3%
FY 98 R&D (percent of sales) $23.3 million (5.0%)
P/E Not meaningful
Five-year average P/E 39.5

Acxiom continues to prove that data is power and that power is indeed money. In 1998, the nation's largest data miner saw its profits grow 29 percent to $35.6 million, its sixth consecutive year of earnings growth over 25 percent. The biggest increase came from credit card companies, who delve deep into Acxiom's 20-plus terabytes of consumer information to pinpoint folks likely to want their cards. Acxiom counts 17 of the largest 25 credit card issuers among its customers.

The mass market is next. Acxiom is phasing in IP-based access to its vast databases. By next April the company will offer, via the Internet, detailed information on the income level, marital status, and buying habits of 95 percent of the US population. Acxiom says access will be affordable for small businesses, even individuals. (The company does plan to screen requests for data, but it hasn't yet explained the criteria by which it will evaluate them.)

But don't think for a second that Acxiom is merely sitting down in Arkansas reselling information. Data is a commodity. The true weapon is knowing how to use it. (end of excerpt)

[Mz Pip]

43. What part of

"properly balance legitimate privacy interests and the need for security." don't you understand?????

"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 Acxiom's effort to win government contracts."

MzPip
:dem:

[Cocoa]

44. is that enough for you?

It's not enough for me.

The privacy issue is very important. I need details on how exactly Acxiom properly balances those issues, particularly after the JetBlue story.

If Clark was persuasive with the company, what changes and improvements were implemeted due to Clark's persuasiveness? What were the discussionsa about, and what did Clark say?

Remember, Clark is running for president.

[HFishbine]

45. Conclusions

Thanks to all who participated in this thread. Here are my thoughts.

I am a middle-aged, white, southern, independent voter -- the kind of voter we hear a lot about the democrats needing if they are going to win. I also think Clark is a smart and decent man. My early leanings were towards seeing him as a VP candidate. But I need to learn more about his thinking before I'd cast a vote for him. That's why I posed a question of legitimate concern to me.

The posts that dismissed my question as "Clark bashing" were not productive. If Clark supporters think that kind of "answer" is going to advance their candidate, they are mistaken. "Sit down and shut up" still leaves one with unanswered questions and a bad taste in the mouth as well.

Far more encouraging was the post from Clark supporter LoneStarLiberal (post #24). He acknowledges my question as legitimate and seeks to provide a reasoned opinion. That's the way to have a discussion.

Now, on to the heart of the issue. The responses to my question (disregarding the hysterical nonsense) seem to fall into the following categories:

1) What's wrong with Clark lobbying? He wasn't paid; he's not on the board of directors any longer; it's an Arkansas company, etc.

My concern was not really that Clark has worked as a lobbyist. Although I recognize the negative consequences of moneyed-lobbyist on legislation, my concern was about the specifics of what Clark was lobbying for.

Also, Clark supporters should refrain from posting incorrect information when the facts are in their face. Clark was paid for his lobbying. (See original post.) But again, that was not my area of concern.

2) The information that would be shared with the government is legally obtained; there is nothing secret; the government could compile the information itself if it wanted to; Norm Mineta supports it; your internet service provider knows what sites you visit; such far-reaching government databases are necessary for our security.

On caveat that must precede my response here is that we don't yet know what, if any, of these arguments amount to Clark's official position. So I'm withholding judgment of Clark on this issue having only the opinions and explanations of his supporter -- which aren't very comforting.

One of my concerns with several of the democratic candidates is that they are simply presenting alternatives for operating in the Bush paradigm. They offer differing policy proposals, but do so while accepting the climate of fear and suspicion Bush has created for America. I repudiate the premise.

I'm going to vote for a candidate who's is best able to persuade me that he or she can restore the values that made America strong for 227 years. The greatest promise of this country is that it is the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE. I reject the notion that 9.11 changed things so drastically that we must now expect that it is somehow in our interest for the government to know as much about us as possible so that we can live with a false sense of security while we live out our days at the Chestnut Tree drinking gin.

Those who suggest that it's a necessity, or even not so bad, if the government starts compiling a dossier on every American citizen are in need of more of an enlightening than I can provide here. (Reading 1984 and the United States Constitution would be a good start.) However, I can say that such a view is very much at odds with the opinions of many a progressive and conservative alike. Too many of these excuses sound eerily similar to Aschroft's cheers for the Patriot Acts.

If that is where the argument rests -- that the most massive government intrusion into our private lives in the history of this great country is a necessity, then there is an insurmountable fundamental difference of opinion. It's one of those differences that draws a line in the sand for voter support of a particular candidate. If the argument is that the terrorists have succeeded in changing a fundamental expectation of the (previously) freest people on earth, and that we must simply capitulate, then I'll never be persuaded.

I will however keep looking for a candidate who seeks to grant greater freedom to Americans; who respects the right to privacy, due process and equal protection; who understands that it is pure folly to pursue a risk-free society at the expense of what it means to be America. Show me the person who repudiates the paradigm of fear and holds forth the possibility of a nation that is strong enough and brave enough not to sacrifice its very essence for the sake of the "war on terra" and that is the person who gets my vote.


Will Clark explain his actions as necessary in this climate of fear or will he repudiate his previous efforts and offer a more hopeful course that rejects massive snooping? I know what I'm looking for...

General Clark?

[RandomUser]

48. Regarding the Patriot Act

Clark makes his stance on this issue quite eloquently, unequivocably, and in quite deep detail. His much-praised townhall meeting in NH is now online. He details exactly what course of action and the specific concrete steps (not just rhetoric saying he's against it) he would take with respect to the Patriot Act. I like the bookmobile idea.

http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/idrive/project/c04/c04092603_clark.rm

Edited to add: I hope this is allays your fears, and answers your reservations.

[HFishbine]

49. Thanks Random

That's very informative. However, the Patriot Act and this move toward government dosiers on citizens are separate issues (alike in principle, but distinguished by policy). I still need to see Clark's opinion on the idea of CAPPS II and the idea of government data mining in general.

[RandomUser]

50. I believe he speaks to that

He addresses the curbing of civil rights with respect to the new climate post 9-11. He says it a lot more eloquently and thoughtfully in that video than any of us can.

[HFishbine]

47. Please

see post #45 above.