Slashdot Mirror
Data Mining In Law Enforcement
jcatcw points out a blog entry by Scott McPherson, CIO for the Florida House of Representatives. McPherson condemns the state of data sharing and data mining in law enforcement, saying that the US causes itself a great deal of trouble by focusing more on "antiterror armor and nuke-sniffing devices" than a useful information distribution network. He discusses a few such projects, and how they could have directly affected the events of 9/11. Quoting:
"One of those ingenious things that actually worked, Seisint founder Hank Asher's brilliant MATRIX system, remains mired in controversy and politics. Hank showed me MATRIX just a few short weeks after the 9/11 attacks. Using law enforcement data and commercial data, all of the commercial data available in the public domain, Asher's query produced [hijacker Mohamed] Atta's photo -- and about 80 others, many of them fellow 9/11 hijackers, many of them associates of the 9/11 hijackers. It was simple data mining and algorithms, and none of the information was obtained illegally."
so he managed to write some software that analyzed the internet - and managed to produce photos of some of the people that erm had already erm been identified. Surely (and maybe I've misunderstood something here) a 'result' would be identifying people likely to commit terrorist attacks, allowing enforcement agencies to monitor them and prevent them from commiting future attacks. (and no - this doesn't mean off-shoring every muslin who downloaded the Jolly Roger Cookbook).
"... obtained illegally"
As counter intuitive as it may seem at first, agencies have strict rules on this kind of behavior.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Wow, really? You were able to identify after the fact? Great! Real useful -- that and the fact that it's much easier to find that information when you are looking for a specific result. If this guy had come out and said, "hey, I was able to find those people before the fact," then I'd be impressed.
The same techniques will likely be effective for identifying most effective protestors against current administration, or people that can be most effectively exploiting sexually, financially or politically. In fact, terrorists generally cover their tracks much better than innocent civilians.
Plus in this adult version of the game people tend to ignore that the next top terrorist will not have a profile on www.myspace.com/insaneplancehijacker/, because he/she knows that data mining exists. Legislation and the public in most western countries tends to ignore that any new countermeasures/laws will result in instant adaption on the other side.
;) and I know some European airports which don't even check your luggage if you have a gallon of fluids in your hand luggage (I usually realize on the security check flying back).Heathrow for example is more busy enforcing their non-smoking policy and tracking lost luggage. If you wanted to transport a nuke Heathrow would be the place to start your journey. But if you are simply looking for a pleasant flight avoid it at all costs :D
Especially at airports I sometimes get so angry about all the silliness that I play some mind-game with the aim of blowing it all up. My current favorite is to put all kinds of fluids in my hand-luggage to distract them from my laptop. I'd simply replace the MBP's CD-Drive with C4 (and some perfectly centered metal rings to make it look like the actual bay). I'm sure it would work out.
On the other hand I'm quite aware that some circumstances make it easier for me: Blond hair and no beard, terrorists use Dell
I don't read replies by ACs.
A quick search for 'automated license plate' on google brings up a bunch of relevant results if you're interested in finding out more.
I keep watching the bar for spying on people get lower and lower.
First it was suspected enemy agentz.
Now its anyone suspected of a crime.
What the hell are you talking about? People suspected of crimes have always been subject to spying, e.g. wiretaps.
Last time I was at an airport dropping my sister of, I was thinking the exact same thing. I saw her going through the security-checkpoint and she had to turn on her laptop so they knew it wasn't a bom. How silly is that: "could you please activate the potential on-switch of a bomb, so we can be sure it isn't a bom?"
Not sure if it is the same everywhere, but the security-checkpoint was pretty crowded, at least 50 at the checkpoint and 100 in close vicinity. If your goal, as a terrorist, is to instill fear, what better way to get people frightened to death of security checkpoints? As a bonus, you kill off some infidels and shutdown the airport of several days (depending on the airport anywhere between hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars/euro's/etc. of damage/loss)
The reality is of course, that the "real terrorist masterminds" and their cells, won't do that. They attack important/unique symbols. The fact that people die in the process, economic damages arise, etc are just bonuses. So the only thing I have to worry about at security checkpoints are those who are in control of them, or some radical religious fruitcake reading slashdot.
It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
The most likely sources of false data is not the people they are trying to catch but supposedly legitimate sources pushing their own barrow, intelligent consultants trying to rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, incompetent local law enforcement on petty ego bloating revenge trips, federal agents to tightly involved in politics creating evidence for electioneering purposes and, of course corporations abusing data in every way imaginable to justify hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts creating giant gigo data dumps, over and over again.
Then of course is the waste of intelligence and law enforcement resources in pursuing a mountain of worthless leads because somewhere in there are valid ones. Hmm, crime prevention, which is the most sensible route, based upon an initial lead you question a possible suspect put them on alert and dissuade them from any further activity or you insert agents who further stir up the mix, who exacerbate a situation that would likely have petered out, who actually create the threat in order to gain an expensive conviction and costly imprisonment for a crime that was never committed, but it looks good for promotions.
So is data mined evidence sufficient to trash some ones house, terrify their family, attend their place of employment and get them fired and, to not only threaten their future but actively destroy it, all of course completely free of any legal responsibility for those clearly immoral actions.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Sure, now you and your girlfriend have a gun to call on in a family spat. You do realize how much more common domestic violence is than home invasions with someone present?