FBI Data Mining For More Than Just Terrorists

jcatcw writes "Computerworld reports that the FBI is using data mining programs to track more than just terrorists. The program's original focus was to identify potential terrorists, but additional patterns have been developed for identity theft rings, fraudulent housing transactions, Internet pharmacy fraud, automobile insurance fraud, and health-care-related fraud. From the article: 'In a statement, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the report [on the data mining] was four months late and raised more questions than it answered. The report "demonstrates just how dramatically the Bush administration has expanded the use of [data mining] technology, often in secret, to collect and sift through Americans' most sensitive personal information," he said. At the same time, the report provides an "important and all-too-rare ray of sunshine on the department's data mining activities," Leahy said. It would give Congress a way to conduct "meaningful oversight" he said.'"

Comments

I for one welcome our Democratic

[megaditto]

I for one welcome our Democratic identity theft rings-supporting, fraudulent housing transactions-endorcing, Internet pharmacy fraud-protecting, automobile insurance fraud-defending, and health-care-related fraud-enabling Overloards? On behalf of all the criminals concerned with their privacy, a Big Thank You to Patrick Leahy!

In all seriousness, is the Senator aware that none of that info collected could be used to convict anyone, or that you cannot even use it to get a warrant, and all it does is tell the officers where to focus their limited resources for legal evidence collection? First Stevens with his internet tubes, now Leahy with his Criminal Privacy protections.

Re:I for one welcome our Democratic

[SnowNinja]

By that logic, it's ok for police officers to break into your house or car in order to see if there's anything illegal inside.

No, it isn't admissible in court, but it does give them a good idea of where to direct their limited resources for legal evidence collection.

Re:Sure

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I don't like data mining, because then they could use some of it against me. Say that, for example, I have a habit that wouldn't exactly be popular with the rulers of this fine nation, like being gay or something. Should it ever come to pass that our government goes 1984 on us, how long do you think it would be before they'd come knocking on my door? Somehow, all we need right now is some 'national crisis' and we're a step closer to that situation.

Re:So are they getting results?

[PopeRatzo]

and my world world somehow still seems more dangerous than it used to be!

We learned today that Al Qaeda has become more powerful over the last year, with rapidly growing numbers in Pakistan and throughout the Middle East and Europe. But I thought we were fighting them all in Iraq? Something's fishy here.

But really, javaman235, your world isn't really more dangerous unless you've taken up smoking tobacco or driving while intoxicated. America was secure before 9/11 and it continues to be secure after 9/11. The chances of you getting killed by a terrorist are pretty much non-existent and have not changed measurably in the last 7 years unless you're a soldier in Iraq. However, the chances of you losing your home to foreclosure or being forced into bankruptcy by a serious illness have jumped quite a bit. That's what's known as "keeping you safe".

The fact that the Secretary of Homeland Security's "gut" is telling him that we're going to get hit by a terrorist attack larger than 9/11 does concern me. I have to wonder about people whose hold on power is predicated on there being a continuing threat of terrorism. People do like to keep power, after all.