Slashdot Mirror
GAO Studies U.S. Government Data Mining
securitas writes "Total Information Awareness is alive and thriving. eWEEK's Caron Carlson reports on a new General Accounting Office study that says TIA-style data mining programs are rampant in federal agencies with 199 projects at 52 of 128 agencies. The Defense Intelligence Agency/DoD is the single largest user of these data mining projects (eg. Verity K2 Enterprise). The story was first reported by Reuters' Andy Sullivan (ZDNet UK mirror) and the NYT's Robert Pear, who wrote that at least 122 projects used personally identifying information like names, e-mail addresses, Social Security and driver's license numbers. The 'actual numbers are likely to be much higher' because the report excludes classified projects. Wired News' Kim Zetter writes that, in addition to government databases, federal agencies mine private databases of credit rating agencies, bank account numbers, student loan applications, etc. This week the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) released a report with privacy guidelines for data mining technology (PDF) development and use. Guidelines include data anonymization, government data access authorization and audit trails. Cynthia (Cindy) Webb's 'Total Information Dilemma' at the Washington Post is an excellent survey of media coverage of TIA, MATRIX and the GAO report 'Data Mining: Federal Efforts Cover a Wide Range of Uses' (mirror, both in PDF format). More at GCN, GovExec and the Guardian/AP."
Just tell me which link to click so I can RTFA.
Post: Sigged, for your pleasure.
From the article... "Scores of data-mining projects that collect and analyze U.S. citizens' personal information are in operation at dozens of federal agencies, the GAO found. Many of the nearly 200 projects planned or already under way rely on data purchased from the commercial sector"
They are purchasing the information from the commercial sector", information that is readily available to anyone willing to pay for it. Congress stopped their TIA initiative, but will allow this due to that major fact.
Hmmm.
Cue 200 posts about how terrible this is. It's not atually very different to what the law-enforcement community's been doing all along, just the tools are better.
It's like the argument about ID cards - there's nothing inherently wrong with being able to conclusively prove that you are who you say you are, but it's another thing entirely for people to be able to demand you prove the same.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Bless you for posting this information. Quite an eye-opener. Good research.
Without laws preventing such mis-use, it runs rampant. European laws guarding personal information are much stronger than in the US, where corporate and government interests and methods are closely aligned, especially these days.
The game of Go (Igo, Weiqi, Baduk) has the simplest concept and the deepest play.
Like the Abu Ghraib Humiliation scandal the intellectual direction has been set at the top levels of the administration, even though the work on the projects is being done by lowly Primary Investigators.
What I wonder is whether the ones setting the intellectual agenda in the administration have any idea ofwhere they are leading us.
I fear, that one day we will be left in shock and awe when we discover that their idea of "preventing terrorism" was as well thought out as the idea of democratizing Iraq. We will all be at the mercy of a State that, like the Iraqi Monster, has grown too big for them to bully around. And then all of us, being in the same boat, will realize that those bas***** in the administration are screwed - but so are we.
.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
The person who has posted this information has gone to the trouble of providing a well rounded set of links that describe from many angles a specific issue, I am happy to see that there are so many links to various points made in the summary, it lends to the credibility of the post. If you are to fucking lazy to click on a page to RTFA(s) then dont.
Go to Yahoo.com and find something _there_ to bitch about. (im sure it wont be hard)
its a well rounded summary of a specific topic that includes links to back up nearly every point made _in_ the summary, click on the points you dont understand or would like to learn more about, skip over the rest and forget about it.
the poster has apparently gone to a fair ammount of trouble to bring these links together into a nice written summary so that you dont have to go out and search for the information yourself (as if you would anyway... pfft).
point being...
If you are too lazy to click on a few links to see the information, you should go back to the other room, turn on the TV sit down and shut the fuck up.
I can't agree less. The current administration has done a nearly flawless job so far.
Bush administration officials ARE responsible for the objectionable actions at Abu Gharib and ARE taking action against those that committed them. That's what being responsible means. Compare that to the previous administration that dodged most responsibility and lied to cover it up.
Don't poor-mouth the intellectual agenda. It is brilliant and is working.
I have trouble seeing how the availability of information is in itself a bad thing. Yes, it can be used to draw false conclusions, but that is a fault of its use, not its existence. And its not like false conclusions are never drawn without databases of public information. Anyone ever heard of racial profiling?
We should not worry about regulating the existence of such databases, we should instead regulate its use. Don't let the police get a search warrant based solely on data they found in a database, but allow them to query the databases to help them obtain the necessary evidence.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
now we're waiting for the enabling law (aka, the law that let the reichstag put people into concentration camps).
You mean a law that would allow people to be detained without a reason, thrown in a Guantanamo Bay prison and not allowed to speak to anyone including legal counsel? Don't be silly that will never happen!
Fool.
How does the government separate the junk data from what may actually be worth looking at?
In the case of the 2000 Florida elections and the woefully inaccurate convicted felons database, the answer was simple: assume the database is correct, especially if it contains a political demographic that is likely to vote Democrat. The ~50,000 non-felons who were denied their right to vote were too poor to sue, so no big deal. I may remind our gentle readers that the Florida presidential elections were decided by less than 600 votes.
It chills me to think that in this age of terrorism paranoia, this kind of approach will be repeated when searching for "terrorists". Hopefully, some of those who are wrongfully "detained" will have the means to fight.
This is not active privacy invading surveillance by the government. The is consolidating information from "publicly"/consented sources to look for trends. Consolidating legal and publicly available data is not invasion of privacy. These projects are forms of "passive surveillance", where we combine and consolidate information from a variety of already known sources to produce information that was not apparent before.
...o wait I don't have a tin hat on, and tin hats are in fashion right now on /.; time to watch this get modded down.
First of all, in Europe, data is collected for specific purposes (use limitation principle) and can only be used for these specific purposes and not for other purposes, unless the data subject explicitly consents to new use.
Secondly, whether or not data is "legal" and "pubicly available," you have to get consent from the data subject in order to use that data. And of course you would still be bound by the use limitation principle.
"Passive surveillance" is not prudent, as the data collector risks collecting "junk data" (data that is incorrect, false, outdated, etc.), in addition to risking data subjects filing lawsuits.
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
And I'd argue that this (even though it might be the current standing of the U.S. Supreme Court), has no merit, and the reason is simple: Our society is built on an infrastructure that, for all practical purposes requires that I do certain things. I have little choice but to place my trash out on a curb for pickup, because there are few, if any other practical options. The fact that I have few (if any) other practical options does not portend or in any way grant anyone a "right" to take advantage of something merely because it is available, and especially because its availability is a byproduct of the infrastructure itself. I use the infrastructure because, as a pragmatic and civil-minded denizen, I must.
Let's address the issue with the "publicly available" information. While there are certain records that are unquestionably public information, I'd argue that what I purchase is NOT public information- each purchase is a contract between myself and those vendors with which I choose to do business. Unfortunately, the easy availability, and wide use of credit, have allowed institutions to hijack, retain, sell, and otherwise use the specific details associated with each transaction, and make them available as they see fit.
Something to think about - Let's say I cut my finger while preparing dinner. I use a kleenex to clean the wound, before applying a bandaid. What am I now to do with the kleenex? It has my blood on it, and presumably, can serve as a "sample" for anyone interested in fishing it out of my garbage. What am I to do? I don't believe that anyone has has a right to acquire this without my permission, or without a warrant. I am placing it in the garbage not because I have any intention of making it available to the public, but because this is the proper and accepted method of disposal.
Here you can see the quandary imposed by a) the infrastructure, and b) the court's current standing. I don't believe it is fair, and I hope to see it change at some point in the future.