What do data collecting agencies actually know about you?

Too much, actually.  And some of it is wrong...

Giving away your personal information for free

And you don't even know it:

Cruising through downtown San Francisco in his car with a $250 homebrew RFID reader setup consisting of a Symbol XR400 RFID reader and a Motorola AN400 patch antenna stuck to the side of his Volvo, he snagged the info off of two passports in just 20 minutes. The point, he says, is "mainly to defeat the argument that you can't do it in the real world, that there's no real-world attack here, that it's all theoretical." The range of his gear is about 30 feet, which is plenty of clearance.

It was just one small laptop...

Which had everyone's social security number and all their personal data...
The Top 10 Data Breaches of 2007

Do it because I say so

No longer seems to work for Georgie and his cabal.

Bryan of Why Now? explains:

In his Saturday liar-side chat™, the Shrubbery complained that the surveillance law needs to keep up with technology. What he was probably looking for was cover for some of the illegal activities that the cheney-bots have been up to for years.

He apparently thought that Congress was going to rubber-stamp a law to help him, but what he got was a response from a veteran of political battles, John Conyers: Committee demanding details of NSA data-mining.

Gee, you mean governing actually means being accountable and explaining yourself to people? I think they haven't yet gotten the memo.

Sorghum Crow of Sorghum Crow's General Store detects a pattern.

Something deeper and more illegal than we have imagined

Possibly took place with the warrantless wiretapping. Eavesdropping on senators' phone calls so they could be blackmailed? Sabotaging presidential candidates? Listening in on other countries diplomatic efforts?

Josh Marshall says it must be bad: (my bold)

Of course, 'data mining' can mean virtually anything. What kind of data and whose you're looking at makes all the difference in the world. Suggestively, the Times article includes this cryptic passage: "Some of the officials said the 2004 dispute involved other issues in addition to the data mining, but would not provide details. They would not say whether the differences were over how the databases were searched or how the resulting information was used."

To put this into perspective, remember that the White House has been willing to go to the public and make a positive argument for certain surveillance procedures (notably evasion of the FISA Court strictures) which appear to be illegal on their face. This must be much more serious and apparently something all but the most ravenous Bush authoritarians would never accept. It is supposedly no longer even happening and hasn't been for a few years. So disclosing it could not jeopardize a program. The only reason that suggests itself is that the political and legal consequences of disclosure are too grave to allow.