DHS Ends Data-Mining Program

ExE122 writes "The Department of Homeland Security has "scrapped an ambitious anti-terrorism data-mining tool." The tool, called ADVISE, was being tested with live data rather than test data without having proper security in place. This program had already been under criticism by privacy advocates and members of Congress. However, according to the article, a DHS spokesman assures that the program will be restarted once the security and cost are re-evaluated."

Comments

Security and cost- yeah right

[AuMatar]

In other words, it will be revived when this blows over and people forget about it.

Re:Security and cost- yeah right

[eln]

My guess would be that they're "canceling" it by moving it into black ops. Either that or it didn't work and they don't want to say they're canceling it because it sucked.

Re:Security and cost- yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they need a government program when the commercial credit agencies already have years of experience with this. It always gives me a chuckle that these databases when maintained by government give libertarians the cold sweats, but private businesses *built* on making a profit off of mining and selling information about you seem to be a-okay.

Re:Security and cost- yeah right

[krgallagher]

"DHS spokesman assures that the program will be restarted once the security and cost are re-evaluated."

In other words, "How secure are we that we won't get caught, and how much political influence will it cost us if we are."

Re:Security and cost- yeah right

[MightyMartian]

I'm no Libertarian, but anyone collecting large amounts of data on my activities makes me nervous. I don't trust credit card companies any more than I trust governments, and I think strict controls must be enforced on how the data is used and who gets to see it, and harmonized methods of correcting bad data. Oh, and massive fines and jail sentences for those discovered misusing the data or inadequately securing it (that means making bureaucrats, politicians and corporate executives directly and completely responsible).

Re:Security and cost- yeah right

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! This sort of thing has "Big Brother" written all over it and, while U.S. citizens seem to be willing to trade at least some of their liberties for perceived increases in safety, they're still by-and-large skeptical of this sort of government oversight. However--and this is a big "however"--there are increased signs that government (not necessarily in the form of the Fed, but at state and local levels as well) is working on indoctrinating the next generation of voters into the "Big Brother is good" camp. Look at what school kids are put through these days (e.g., schools with metal detectors and compulsory searches), the variety of censorware being shoved into places where it's not entirely appropriate, etc., in the name of "think of the children."

Sure, mod me down because I'm a) anonymous, and b) sound like a crackpot. However, do yourself, your kids (if you've got 'em), and me a favor. If you've got kids, take a close look at how they're interacting with the world... and how the world is interacting with them. If you don't have kids, at least take a look at how the school board in your area is instructing kids. It's frequently enlightening.

Re:Security and cost- yeah right

[PopeRatzo]

Oh, and massive fines and jail sentences for those discovered misusing the data or inadequately securing it

How's that gonna happen when the administration only has to whisper the words "National Security" and every bit of oversight is swept away?

Ultimately, that's what warrants are for. Not just for lawmen to get permission to snoop, but so that there's a record of it having happened at all.

Warrantless surveillance doesn't only mean that there's no controls over whether or not we're spied upon, but that we can't even ask the question. Is there any danger that would justify giving a government agency unlimited license to violate civil rights?

Re:Security and cost- yeah right

[MightyMartian]

Well, the solution is to make no request by a government agency, no matter how top secret, immune from judicial oversight.

Re:Security and cost- yeah right

[PopeRatzo]

the solution is to make no request by a government agency, no matter how top secret, immune from judicial oversight.

That's already in the Constitution. But unfortunately, we've got one branch that doesn't care about the Constitution and another that refuses to do anything about it. And if the third makes a move, they're called "activist judiciary" and out of control. One more appointment by Branch #1 and that third branch might as well stay home.

Tor like oatmeals!

[Anonymous Coward]

Tor like oatmeals!

Re:Data mining tool

[Xonstantine]

The government powerful enough to do everything for you is powerful enough to do anything to you.

Ambitious ???

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA: "ambitious"

Who fucking wrote this, Fox News?

How about "illegal"?

Name change only

[interiot]

When the Total Information Awareness program (the one with the odd all-seeing-eye logo) was closed down, people were happy... but it came back, and now we're to believe it's permanently killed this time?

Anti-terrorist methodology

[Boa Constrictor]

The whole method is flawed if you're going to let people become a threat and then try to find them. People aren't --contrary to popular belief-- born with an urge to commit acts of terrorism. The people who do the dirty work are typically the vulnerable, young and easy to incite. These people are in relatively great supply compared to the people organising and radicalising.

The real problem is the supply of money. Without money no terrorist network can function, training and supplying insurgents of any sort costs a heck of a lot to do. It's not about whichever ideal people think they're striving for, it's political manipulation and money behind it. The US would make more ground investigating the US bank accounts of certain very rich nations who export petrochemicals and use profits to make this whole thing happen. Terrorism isn't a standard response, it's a political attack and must not be treated like petty crime.

I've not mentioned any brand of terrorism, many fit the bill -- please don't think I'm stereotyping here.

Re:Anti-terrorist methodology

[YrWrstNtmr]

The US would make more ground investigating the US bank accounts of certain very rich nations who export petrochemicals and use profits to make this whole thing happen.

What makes you think that this wasn't one of the parameters this thing would look for.

Re:The price of freedom is eternal vigilence?

[Torodung]

For now they are the "good guys," but DHS is the KGB in America if we do not maintain vigilance.

Expecting all government agencies to accept full oversight and have court approval, even if it's a secret court, for any and all domestic spying is just and reasonable. Expecting unpopular surveillance programs, such as TIA, to remain scrapped when the public demands they be scrapped, instead of split up and farmed to less scrutinized agencies is simply government accountability, not paranoia.

These people are the good guys until they become the bad guys, and if we let them get that far, then we've given them too long of a leash, and it's too damned late.

They should be watched like a hawk by Congress and by citizen groups alike. It isn't good enough, in today's data mining age, to trust the "good guys" to secure our safety. We have to be protected from the protectors as well. Demand greater Congressional oversight and procedures for this relatively new, power hungry department. It's the duty of every American to secure his own freedom through participatory democracy, not trust.

Or, if you prefer: "Trust, but verify."

--
Toro

Makes it sound like the decision is already made.

[Kaenneth]

...the program will be restarted once the security and cost are re-evaluated."

this is like saying:

"You will be given a fair trial, followed by your execution."