The controversial traveler screening program that travel records to attempt to identify criminals and terrorists whose names aren't necessarily on watch lists flagged a Jordanian man named Ra'ed al-Banna in 2003, according to Homeland Security's top policy official Stewart Baker. Customs officials in Chicago then probed him for answers and finding them wanting denied him entry, despite his possession of a valid visa. In 2005, al-Banna drove a car-bomb into a crowded line of police recruits and killed 132 people.
Baker credited the Automated Targeting System for keeping al-Banna out of the country.
Baker, the former general counsel for the NSA who's long been known for his gleeful chiding of privacy advocates, told the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Tuesday that the government might not do so well at detecting potential threats in the future if privacy advocates have their way.
That's because the computer system that first flagged al-Banna for scrutiny is suddenly being attacked as an invasion of travelers' privacy.Baker said the program was not a data-mining program, rather it was a link-analysis program, like those which were able to draw connections between the 9/11 attackers after the attacks.There are calls to abolish it or restrict how DHS uses it. Those calls are wrong, and I'd like to show why by explaining how the system works.
Traditionally, a data-mining program attempts to find patterns in a mass of data, such as Amazon might do to figure out what books to stock based on their customers' interests or as the Total Information Awareness program proposed to pinpoint terrorist plotters by searching government and private company's databases for suspicious activity. By contrast, a link analysis system starts with a specific target -- in this case an incoming target and tries to see what infomation about them links them to known bad guys. For instance, did the traveller use a travel agency or credit card that a known criminal or suspected terrorist also used.
Here's how it works. When people buy plane tickets, they give the airline some information - names, passport numbers, frequent-flyer numbers, credit cards, and so on. DHS collects this information from the airlines and uses ATS to do screening for dangerous people.
ATS runs the travelers' names against lists of known or suspected terrorists. It can also do a quick link analysis, looking for travelers who gave the airline a phone number that's also used by a known terrorist.
ATS's capacity to find hidden links of this kind is one of its most powerful features.
This is a lesson we learned from September 11. After-the-fact reviews of the hijackers' travel reservations showed that we might have been able to uncover the plot if we'd had better computer systems and better access to travel data. The full text of Baker's remarks, which include a defense of the legality of the program, is .
Baker did not however mention that the system targets Americans as well as foreigners. Nor did he mention any relevant statistics such as how many Americans and foreigners have been stopped by the program or how many people have complained or attempted to get redress. He also failed to mention that the system exempts itself from the key tenets of the Privacy Act, which exists to prevent secret databases on Americans.
While connecting the dots may be necessary, is it necessary to treat all American citizens as potential terrorists? And in abscene of full disclosure by Homeland Security about the program to Congress, its allies in Europe and American citizens, why should we trust that this program is as targeted as the government says it is.
If I missed anything or you have something to say, drop me a note at ryan @ ryan singel dot net.
Also, I was hardly the first on this story. Michael Hampton's Homeland Stupidty me off to Baker's remarks, while and both wrote it up.
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 1:46 PM
Of course we all have to be treated as potential terrorists.
Especially journalists. Those guys have done more to help the terrorists through their shoddy biased reporting than anybody else. They should all be rounded up and shipped off to Gitmo.
..
OK, I'll stop now.
.. :)
Seriously, as Cato's Jim Harper mentioned, it's possible to use anonymization techniques to mitigate the privacy risks.
Or just don't show the data to the customs official until or unless he actually needs it.
But it depends on what risks you're trying to protect against. If it's just the occasional rogue agent who thinks he can make some money on the side by selling off "good" identities, then they've probably done enough.
If it's a systemic issue, where you're trying to prevent high-level large-scale abuse, then nothing is going to work -- no amount of law will stop that sort of thing.
So it's important to define clearly the risks you are concerned about.
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 3:54 PM
I'm a Danish journalist working with Columbia University on a project about citizen journalism and NewAssigment.
net. If you spend more than two hours a day voluntarily writing articles for the Internet, then I would love to speak to you. I am interested in what, why and how you write - on any subject.
Please contact me on: ag2576@columbia.edu.
Many thanks - Anna.
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 4:04 PM
Wow Danish journalsit, do you have pictures?? I'll send you some of mine since you were kind enough to post your email to all [x] readers of these posts!
As to the article. . .
But of course he became a car bomber. Wouldn't you if you were denied the chance to visit disney world!?
?
Down with the racist DHS!!
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 4:28 PM
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty. -Benjamin Franklin
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
-Thomas Jefferson
As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air however slight lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.
-William O. Douglas, Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 4:32 PM
As a member of the traveling public, I believe we need to have balance between privacy and security. Collecting data is one thing, but how it is used is another. In my mind, as long as it is only used for this purpose and no other (e.
g. sold to corps), I really don't have that "much" of a problem with it (I still have reservations, but balance, people, balance).
My main concern is if you mistakenly get on their watch list, it is a major pain to get off of it.
From what I remember (and my memory can be flawed) it is reviewed by a mid-level flunkie and if they don't like it, the review stops there, no other recourse. There needs to be a system that will take you all the way to the top, if need be, to clear yourself.
I will stop there, I could be here all night flaming on the TSA/DHS idiots.
...
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 4:59 PM
Wait...
.people don't have a right to use contraception?
Aside from some overly religious group, I don't see who would deny someone that.
I guess if you want all sorts of babies born unto irresponsible people then that works.
Owning slaves then wasn't 'bad' like it is today. Around the time they owned slaves, the slaves had already been through worse things.
Working for another man just because of your color was bad, but if there wasn't another way at the time, does it really seem like anyone would know any better? Believe it or not, some slave owners were nice to their slaves too.
As for the topic.
...
I think the main issue is a lot of people have finally begun to think critically about their government and are starting to wonder if they actually trust them with the information they're collecting.
I trust Google when they say their motto is "Do no evil" and they haven't given me a reason to not trust them yet. Especially when their intentions are shown through things like www.
Google.org
On the other hand, I can't think of any programs the government is involved in that don't have a underlying cause of just bettering themselves. It should be about bettering our country and citizens.
When those things are better we have less of a security risk. Foreign countries will hate us less and our citizens will understand that there are other nations of people and what they believe isn't to be made fun of. We CAN veer away from being called 'the infadels' if we put a lid on some of our ignorance before it gets out of control.
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 5:03 PM
wow, debasing an argument by attacking the speaker personally. Great tactic, flawed and usually useless to the listener, but a good tactic none the less.
As long as this system only flags people to be questioned by customs/fbi or whatever security agency involved it's fine.
If it changes so that people are prevented from traveling or harrased more than once because of this program then there's a problem.
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 5:05 PM
very nice, but all this the constitution crap applies to citizens and people allowed into the country as residents. None of this applies to foreign nationals attempting to enter.
Extension of such priviledges are done entirely at the discretion of the USGov.
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 5:13 PM
Hey am i missing some juicy dialog?
I'm not sure what shadus was doing in his second post and I didn't hear anyone attacking a speaker.
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 5:15 PM
And what ever happened to that dishy belgian journalist?
Thanks for the pics!!
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 5:42 PM
" In 2005, al-Banna drove a car-bomb into a crowded line of police recruits and killed 132 people."
Is this a joke worthy of the John Lennon files? Think about it folks.
Thursday, 21 December 2006 - 6:55 PM
If this system were so valuable, they wouldn't have waited 18 months to tell us they had identified al-Banna as having been denied entry, and they should have arrested him in the first place to protect the Iraqis (being that we're supposed to be protecting them until they can protect themselves). And that's the reason this system should be checked out by competent outsiders, i.e.
, the rest of us. We have no idea what the statistics are for success versus false positive identification using ATS. We need to have a public decision about how many innocents we're willing to see swept up in these efforts, whether we're talking about citizens, residents, or just plain people.
Arresting the innocent is no recipe for success.
Friday, 22 December 2006 - 2:15 AM
It should be about bettering our country and citizens. When those things are better we have less of a security risk.
Foreign countries will hate us less and our citizens will understand that there are other nations of people and what they believe isn't to be made fun of.-
Too damn right. Stop fucking around with other peoples lives and meddling in other nations affairs and most of your so-called 'security risks' will pretty much disappear.
Friday, 22 December 2006 - 5:02 AM
Improve yourself and you improve your country. Unfortunately we live in a world that isn't all on the same page.
I don't believe that every Muslim out there wants my head.
I'm guessing that number will be around a couple thousand. But that's okay - I'm safer here than I am over there on their turf. I have my homeys watching my back so they don't cap my ass during one of their drive by / crash by excursions.
I sleep well at night knowing that my biggest fear once the alarm is set on the house is that my wife might fart all night.
If you don't let our security check your papers now and then, and you want to be 'nice' to everybody in the world, then you may as well line up like cattle and let any bored terrorist come down the line and hack with the scimitar until he's bored shitless.
That's not a stab at mid-easterners; I own a scimitar myself.
Sunday, 24 December 2006 - 11:22 AM
I love how Benjamin Franklin has been consistently misquoted by certain types...
Those who would give up ESSENTIAL liberties for temporary security deserve neither. -Benjamin Franklin
Franklin (contrary to popular misinformation) was not a hard left-leaning lunatic Libertarian.
Tuesday, 26 December 2006 - 8:17 PM
Who is watching the Pentagon that spent U$500.
000.000.000.
000.000 billions of our tax money in a wasted war? Where is Bin Laden Co?
This war has been the biggest looting of a nation. Now is more terrorist , we are broke, and see what is coming soon with the monetary and financial world.
Half trillion dollars.
Who is spying on them and see where the money went?
News RSS