| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Common Sense and Computer Analysis |
| 2004-05-31 |
| By Heather Mac Donald Monday, May 31, 2004; Page A23 Irrational paranoia about computer technology threatens to shut down an entire front in the war on terror. A prestigious advisory panel has just recommended that the Defense Department get permission from a federal court any time it wants to use computer analysis on its own intelligence files. It would be acceptable, according to the panel, for a human agent to pore over millions of intelligence records looking for al Qaeda suspects who share phone numbers, say, and have traveled to terror haunts in South America. But program a computer to make that same search, declares the advisory committee, and judicial approval is needed, because computer analysis of intelligence databanks allegedly violates "privacy." Who are these wankers and why are they breathing my oxygen? This nonsensical rule is the latest development in the escalating triumph of privacy advocacy over common sense. Unfortunately, the privacy crusade is jeopardizing national security as well. The privacy advocates’ greatest victory to date was in shutting down the Pentagon’s Total Information Awareness program. That research was testing whether computers can spot terrorist activity by sifting through reams of electronic data. In the wake of the TIA’s demise last September, the defense secretary appointed a panel of Washington stalwarts, including Floyd Abrams and Lloyd Cutler, to advise the Pentagon on future intelligence technology research. But rather than clarifying the issues around computer analysis, privacy and national security, the panel’s recent report has made a bad situation worse. Yes, I’m very concerned about surveillance abuses, but I also want data mining tools to be used appropriately against the flood of information about terrorists. At stake is a young technology known as data mining. Data mining responds to the explosion of information in scientific, government and commercial databanks. Through complex algorithms, it uncovers significant patterns in computer data whose sheer volume defeats human analysis. TIA researchers hoped to use data mining on intelligence databases, and possibly commercial databanks as well, to find the electronic footprints terrorists leave as they plan and rehearse their next attack. Misinformation swirled around the TIA almost from the moment it was announced. Privacy advocates claimed that pattern analysis represents a radically new and unconstitutional approach to law enforcement. It does not. Police officers search for patterns every time they observe a city street looking for suspicious behavior -- someone casing a jewelry store, say, or trolling for drug buyers. Looking for suspicious behavior in computer databases -- connecting the dots, for example, between purchases of large volumes of bomb-making chemicals, phone calls to known Islamic radicals, travel to Sudan and the rental of a Ryder truck -- differs only in the medium of observation, not the technique. TIA critics also charged that it would insuperably violate privacy. But information in commercial databanks is probably the least private thing about us: It is routinely sold to marketers and is often available by Internet search. The government already has legal access to such data without obtaining a warrant. Nevertheless, TIA researchers were developing cutting-edge privacy protections that would make electronic records anonymous until a sufficiently suspicious pattern suggesting terrorist activity emerged. The facts about the TIA were lost under nonstop charges that the project represented an Orwellian plot to spy on every American. And now the Pentagon advisory committee has taken the hysteria about data mining to a whole new level. The committee demands that counterterrorism analysts seek court approval to mine the Pentagon’s own lawfully acquired intelligence files, if there is a chance that they might contain information on U.S. citizens or resident aliens -- basically all intelligence files. Eyeball scrutiny of those same files, however, requires no such judicial oversight. This rule suggests a bizarre conceit that the automation of human analysis, which is all data mining is, somehow violates privacy more than the observation of those same items by a person. In fact, the opposite is true. A computer has no idea what it is "reading," but merely selects items by rule. A human might remember some sort of obscure one-time fact they stumbled across pertaining to a single citizen, a computer CAN’T, unless it specifically has been instructed to. The advisory committee’s technophobia does not end with intelligence analysis. It would also require the defense secretary to give approval for, and certify the absolute necessity of, Google searches by intelligence agents. Even though any 12-year-old with a computer can freely surf the Web looking for Islamist chat rooms, defense analysts may not do so, according to the panel, without strict oversight. Cue "Twilight Zone" theme: [nee ... nee ... nee ... nee] SECDEF having to "give approval for, and certify the absolute necessity of, Google searches" ... Whoever came up with this little gem desperately needs some parking lot therapy. The defense secretary should reject the panel’s recommendations, which are based neither in logic nor in law. The government receives 126 million intelligence intercepts a day. Humans cannot possibly keep up with the intelligence tidal wave; anti-terror agents miss connections between suspects, places and events every day. Computer analysis of intelligence data is not merely optional, it is virtually required, for the government to have any hope of extracting evidence of terrorist activity from the tsunami of possibly relevant information. To demand a laborious court appeal every time the government wants to sift that data electronically would bring our intelligence efforts to a halt, and leave us vulnerable to the next terror attack. The only way to analyse terrorist communications chatter will be with computers. Even if you forced the computer to exclude natural born American citizens, we would still be light years ahead in our quest to intercept terrorists before they commit their atrocities. There is a happy medium and our very lives depend upon finding it. |
| Posted by:Zenster |
| #18 Privacy is a right - but rights must be balanced against one another and must be prioritized. I have no desire to have government agents, or their software, sifting through my IP packets to see what web sites I've visited. I also have no desire to see thousands of innocent people blown up, or a much smaller number of children abducted by serial molesters. The trick here is, as it has always been, to find as good a balance between security and freedom as we can. Historically, that balance has shifted in response to events. During wartime, security generally takes higher priority - but not total priority, if only to preserve the core of that way of life we cherish. The problem isn't that the government is using software to sift records .. the problem is that the software isn't smart *enough* yet to do so without exposing names and actions unnecessarily to the intel and federal officials using it. Ideally, we could program software agents to find patterns and clues we need, and only expose the identities of the people involved for the limited few instances where there is a sufficiently solid hit. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-06-01 5:58:15 AM |
| #17 Better that a thousand criminals go free than one innocent man be falsely convicted. Got a problem with that? YES, YES, YES, I have a problem with that. The guy who told that silliness obviously thought only about one-time criminals: if ypou let them go the only harm is you lose the opportunity of punishing them. But then there are people like Marc Dutroux. If you let him go then many underaged girls will be raped on camera and killed. If you release these one thousand criminals then the blood of the victims killed after their release will be on YOUR hands. And you can rest assured that if one of my daughters is harmed by a serial criminal who has been released (a la Marc Dutroux) I would dedicate my life to making pay both the people who released him and the opinion leaders who advocate the release of serial criminals. |
| Posted by: JFM 2004-06-01 5:48:11 AM |
| #16 Zenster, I am not an American, and know next to nothing about US constitutional issues. The issue is privacy versus security of person and property. I happen to think privacy is non-issue. Why should I care if someone wants to knew what I have been doing, unless I have been doing something illegal or socially disapproved of (the latter doesnt really apply to me). People are innocent until proven guilty. Agreed, but the issue is the extent you allow collection of evidence of both a crime occuring and culpability, where such evidence exists on private property or in public hands in the case of the TIA. The Left continually tries to link personal liberty with privacy, whereas I see them as diametrically opposed. Increasing privacy decreases personal liberty and visa versa. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-06-01 5:13:12 AM |
| #15 Quick question, Phil B. How closely do you equate a law abiding citizen's right to privacy with their constitutional protection from illegal search and seizure? I also disagree that a private citizen cannot have privacy and simultaneously be shown to be innocent. The burden of correctly determining probable cause or proving any wrongdoing is placed squarely upon the prosecution and their appointed officers operating in the field. People are innocent until proven guilty. They need not be required to prove their innocence until such a time as when their culpability is legitimately called into question. I suggest you cut down on your TV watching. It's not good for you. I'll be happy to send you a photo of my only television's remote covered with a deep coating of dust. My set has remained off for almost three entire years to date. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-06-01 3:22:00 AM |
| #14 Better that a thousand criminals go free than one innocent man be falsely convicted. Got a problem with that? Yep, I have a huge problem with it. It would require a false conviction rate of 0.1%. Hard data on false conviction rates is for obvious reasons difficult to obtain but I have never seen an estimate even remotely close to this level. The only way you could get to this rate would be abandon all prosecutions except where the perp was caught in the act by at least a dozen witnesses. Crime/terrorism would of could skyrocket, since anyone with half a brain could be sure of getting away with almost any crime. Otherwise it is irrelevant to my point. You have to invade privacy to get the evidence that a crime occured in the first place and to identify the perp. "fo-ren-sic a-nal-y-sis?" I suggest you cut down on your TV watching. It's not good for you. Eye witnesses are also pretty useful Eye witnesses are close to useless as any first year psychology major will tell you. Effectively all serial killers slip through the cracks as you call them. individual privacy to remain a fundamental right of the innocent. Now do you see the internal paradox in this statement? A person can not have privacy and be show to be innocent. Its not logically possible. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-06-01 1:06:26 AM |
| #13 How can you determine if they are law abiding without invading their privacy? Can you say, "fo-ren-sic a-nal-y-sis?" Very good, I knew you could. Eye witnesses are also pretty useful in narrowing down the list of suspects. Previously recorded MOs and (gasp) accessing data already on file in public records (drivers licenses, tax records, etc.) is pretty standard fare. Yes, some serial killers without any other priors slip through the cracks. This does not lessen the need for individual privacy to remain a fundamental right of the innocent. Better that a thousand criminals go free than one innocent man be falsely convicted. Got a problem with that? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-31 11:56:41 PM |
| #12 "Advent"? ad·vent n. 1. The coming or arrival, especially of something extremely important ... 3. Coming; any important arrival; approach. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-31 11:48:42 PM |
| #11 Duh! How can you determine if they are law abiding without invading their privacy? Lets say I murder my neighbour in my basement, cut up the body and bury body parts in said basement. There is no evidence in a public place that a crime has occured. BTW, this is a common MO for mass murders who get away with it for years. I could give you a thousand similar examples/scenarios. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-05-31 11:37:39 PM |
| #10 Phil B, the privacy of law abiding individuals should be pretty much sacrosanct. Criminals give up any right to privacy due to the necessity of investigating their wrongdoings. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-31 11:28:14 PM |
| #9 Senate Bill S.188 - Data Mining Moratorium Act of 2003 has been introduced, just in case this commission fails. It was introduced in Jan 2003 and, as far as I can tell, still in committee - referred to Committee on the Judiciary. Note that TIA is fucking dead as this article notes. "Advent"? I tend to think there be too much puffery here. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-31 11:08:08 PM |
| #8 I used to post at Samizdata, until I had a major falling out with Perry and others on exactly this topic. I won't rehash all my arguments but it comes down to more privacy = more crime/terrorism. The notion that privacy is a right is frankly ridiculous. It would mean people could commit crimes with impunity, because privacy would block determining a crime had occured never mind collecting of evidence. |
| Posted by: Phil B 2004-05-31 9:27:13 PM |
| #7 Privacy may be an inalienable right but it isn't in the Constitution. That is why it is granted by the judiciary. Excellent point, Mr. Davis. In light of TIA's advent, perhaps our politicians' costly time would be better spent focussing upon this sort of vital redefinition of rights as opposed to enshrining discriminatory drivel like the DOMA into America's constitution. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-31 5:10:53 PM |
| #6 So I suppose that using Google is an invasion of privacy then? What if they're just looking for random websites? I can see the trial now: PROSECUTOR: This man has been using Google without a warrant! We have records of him using that search engine without proper permission! DEFENDANT: But I was just looking for good places to go on vacation! PROSECUTOR: And what's next? Looking up facts? Celebrities? Old computer games? Seriously, this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Words almost fail me in describing their idiocy. What's next, checking out a website (either personal or that of an organization) being the equivalent of search & seizure without just cause? |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-05-31 4:54:18 PM |
| #5 Privacy may be an inalienable right but it isn't in the Constitution. That is why it is granted by the judiciary. |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-05-31 3:52:17 PM |
| #4 ... the people whose self-esteem was boosted by never being told they were wrong in school. Never has a generation had so much self-esteem for so little reason. The reason it becomes a problem is that our education system churns out so many of these drones and most of them become lawyers. You left out the part about how America's politicians are about as technologically literate as a celery stalk. Old Spook, I tend to concur with you, save in definition. Privacy has been limned out as some sort of privilege granted via judicial decision when, in fact, it is an inalienable right. Privileges are granted, rights are inherent. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-05-31 3:19:37 PM |
| #3 This is what happens when the courts manufacture a right - the right to privacy - instead of directing the legislature to enact the preservation and instantiation of the right in legislated law. We are now dealing with the consequences of a nebulous right manufactured by the activist courts. THe legislature needs to step up and define the right in laws, which woudl avoid things being bent to rediculous extremes by liberal activists lawyers and their pet judges. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2004-05-31 2:32:42 PM |
| #2 This is typical of the neo-Luddites of the Left, the people whose self-esteem was boosted by never being told they were wrong in school. They are basically ignorant and secure in their beliefs that they are smart enough, good enough, and that people like them. They are at once both dimissive and fearful of technology. What they know about computer technology they learned from watching The Matrix and, for the older ones, 2001, A Space Odyssey. They will always fear what they don't understand and mistrust those that do. The reason it becomes a problem is that our education system churns out so many of these drones and most of them become lawyers. |
| Posted by: RWV 2004-05-31 1:13:18 PM |
| #1 This does, indeed, sound insane - which suits the idiotarian crowd pefectly. The source is WaPo, which suggests a measure of caution, IMO, regards what's factual and what's opinion or spin... but the premise and conclusion certainly seem logical. As for the 126 million intercepts, how many will have to be handled by an interpreter first? How many will have to be hand-corrected for non-English speaker screw-ups, such as the bizarre mispellings and syntax wackiness, such as we've seen in articles posted on RB? I'm afraid that there will be a huge amount of human intervention required to reformat non-English DB entries into a usable form. I'm absolutely certain there are not enough translators, trustworthy or not, available. And I'm sure that there are other problems with the premise of managing a master DB of intel which can be mined - beyond the language issue - but the effort is undoubtedly worthwhile. I've done quite a bit of mining code and it does offer surprising results - non-intuitive and other relationships between data points that just aren't visible otherwise. Big hurdles must be oversome, but worthy. Dismiss this commission of LLL-sensitized twits, Rummy - they're not just foolish, they're on the other side. Common sense is what's required. And speed. Speed's important. Do it. Now. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-05-31 12:33:46 PM |