False Data:
Implications

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

FALSE DATA: IMPLICATIONS

 

It is axiomatic that the implications of false or erroneous raw, third-party data can be very serious indeed.

Lawyers, law enforcement personnel, private investigators, academics, researchers and others have a need to access information of all kinds and need to know that the information they seek and/or obtain is valid and accurate. Further, they need to be able to confirm this information independently particularly in situations where it not clear, it is alleged or it has been demonstrated that the raw, third-party data obtained from some electronic database is patently false, i.e., for example, where a physical check of a property address reveals a vacant lot rather than a residence that supposedly existed there (and no recent demolition has occurred!).

Valid and accurate raw, third-party data is absolutely essential as a pre-condition to many civil and criminal proceedings and as a starting point for private investigations of all kinds.

For example, valid and accurate address information is necessary for the purpose of service of a Statement of Claim in a civil proceeding, the service of a Summons, the execution of a Warrant, the location of a debtor, the notification of a beneficiary of an estate or insurance policy or the starting point of a surveillance investigation.

Nothing can happen until the subject of an enquiry can be located and that location information can be validated and confirmed.

A great deal of false information is contained in various electronic and other records as a result of clerical errors, oversights and negligence including the failure to update records for whatever reason.

For example, errors within Credit Bureau and Financial Records are very common and can severely affect personal credit scores leading to a denial of additional credit or higher interest rates. This can occur when a debt that has been discharged is not removed from the Credit Bureau Report or when information related to a person of the same or similar name becomes associated with the wrong individual. (Check your own Credit Report to validate this point.)

In many cases, it is clear that this ‘false’ information is essentially innocent in nature and results from a failure to update records of all kinds in a timely manner or simple input errors by clerical staff when transcribing information from other written or typed documents to electronic records. For example, it is common for licensed drivers to forget, overlook or procrastinate concerning the notification of a change of address to licensing authorities within the officially required time.

In other cases, false information exists for less than innocent reasons. This occurs, for example, when an individual deliberately fails to properly notify the proper authorities of a change of address in order to frustrate or prevent being found or when an individual deliberately provides false personal information on a credit card, loan, mortgage or other application or when an individual ‘steals someone’s identity’ and submits a false income tax return or opens a bank account using the ‘stolen’ identity.

The existence of false information, combined with inexperience, failure, refusal or inability to independently confirm the validity and accuracy of such information can have serious consequences leading to baseless financial demands, denial of credit, unwarranted defamatory media attention and, in some cases, groundless civil initiatives and criminal charges.

These negative consequences can be compounded by uninformed, self-serving and./or cynical beliefs or exploited by those who attempt to use the information to deflect attention away from themselves and avoid civil and criminal liability.

This is particularly insidious and disturbing on those occasions when the government itself and/or its agencies act, not in the public interest, but rather in the private interest of various current and former politicians, members of government, corporate, financial, judicial ‘friends’ and other individuals. Government, after all, controls, the administration of justice, the judiciary, the police and, indirectly, the media and has the means to co-opt and disguise what amounts to conspiratorial criminalization and marginalization of any person who poses a threat to corrupt members of government and/or their friends. It only needs the reason and the will to act in such a corrupt fashion. (See Menu item, Licence Revocation)

Historically, the impact of uninformed, self-serving and cynical belief is well known. For example, many used to believe that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that the moon was made of green cheese, that the Titanic was unsinkable, that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) existed in Iraq, that police always tell the truth and that judges and juries in criminal trials rendered correct and proper verdicts.

Later, emerging science and other revelations demonstrated, of course, that the world was not flat, that the earth revolved around that sun, that the moon was made of everything but green cheese, that the Titanic sank, in part, because of the use of inferior quality iron rivets, that the notion that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) existed in Iraq was based on false intelligence information provided by the U.S. government, that police do, on occasion, give erroneous, false (perjured) testimony and, following the advent of DNA analysis, that hundreds of individuals have been wrongly convicted in recent years of capital crimes based on inadequate forensics, erroneous facts, inaccurate eyewitness evidence and bombastic, groundless prosecutorial argument.

When baseless and inaccurate data is used for any reason, but particularly for the purpose of initiating criminal proceedings, the effects can be devastating, especially when such information and criminal charges are routinely used and shared by law enforcement authorities in essentially a mindless and automatic fashion.

The gravity of this situation was highlighted recently on Thursday April 10, 2010 in U.S.A. Today in an article entitled, “Do databases cross a line in border checks?”

The article focused on the issue of criminal information (data) sharing between Canada and the United States that began with a treaty signed between the two countries during the Reagan administration.The article points out, that since 9/11, there is a feeling that this data must be shared, including information concerning arrest warrants, and lists of missing persons, fugitives and terrorists.

The problem with all this information sharing, however, is ABOUT HALF (50%) OF THE ARREST RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT CONVICTIONS, DISMISSALS OR ACQUITTALS according to a senior advisor to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division.

This has led to numerous cases of individuals from both Canada and the United States being denied entry to each country, many times based on erroneous and outdated information.
Both countries – although they freely share information on their respective criminal record databases - have no right to audit U.S. queries of Canadian data or Canadian queries of U.S. data.

Not only is the erroneous nature of much of the information a problem in itself, but the sheer volume of enquiries by both countries of each other’s data “raises serious privacy and information security concerns”.

The article pointed out, for example, that FBI records revealed that during the Winter Olympics, Canadian authorities ran nearly 10,000 criminal history checks per day (more than some U.S states). Conversely, according to RCMP records, since January 2010 to the time of publication of the article, while Canada conducted 400,000 queries, U.S. authorities made 1.4 million enquiries.

And, it is worth repeating, according to the FBI, ABOUT HALF (50%) OF THE ARREST RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED and therefore contain potentially false (erroneous) information. Furthermore, the information sharing, as stated, includes data concerning arrest warrants which may include information concerning matters that have not yet been adjudicated, i.e. mere allegations that have not yet been proven following trial or other judicial proceeding.

There is, as the saying goes, something very seriously wrong with this picture! The problem, however, is that what is reflected in the ‘picture’ is what is crafted by the painter. And the ‘painter’ is the government itself including the departments and agencies it purports to control.

The Truth Will Set You Free