Slashdot Mirror


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."

7 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Security and cost- yeah right by AuMatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    --
    I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    1. Re:Security and cost- yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Security and cost- yeah right by krgallagher · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "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."

      --

      Insert Generic Sig Here:

    3. Re:Security and cost- yeah right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Security and cost- yeah right by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  2. Name change only by interiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  3. Anti-terrorist methodology by Boa+Constrictor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.