Making The Case For Mahmoud
Published by BG on Friday, September 07, 2007 at 8:44 AM.Surprise! The Department of Homeland Security ran a pilot of some new data mining software (called ADVISE) with real data. They weren't supposed to do this, you know, because "the ADVISE tool could misidentify or erroneously associate an individual with undesirable activity such as fraud, crime or terrorism."
mail.com - DHS Ends Criticized Data-Mining Program
This is where you can start calling "bullshit" on the old trope that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
Wrong.
Caring about governmental encroachment on our civil liberties isn't a personal concern. Do I believe the government is trying to listen in on my phone calls - and I mean me, personally? Nope. But do I think that a law-abiding legitimate businessman of Iraqi descent living in Dearborn, Michigan (let's call him Mahmoud) has more reason to believe he's being profiled? Absolutely.
B-b-b-b-but, you say, if he's not doing anything illegal...
Wrong again, that's not how data mining programs work. Mahmoud from Dearborn fits a profile. His "type" becomes exponentially more likely to be stopped at the airport, questioned by the IRS over faith-based tithing, detained by immigration before and after trips to visit family overseas, and listened to while he's on the phone.
Now, I've got no problem with this if there's reasonable suspicion to criminal activity (or plotting of such), as long as there's oversight (say, from the FISA court, as intended). But this administration would have you believe their ability to handle the terror problem is hamstrung by oversight, and you and your children are less safe as a result.
Bullshit.
The FISA court provided an agile rubber-stamp oversight body through which the government's ability to wiretap legitimate targets was not hindered. This administration wanted the ability to shroud their data collection efforts in secrecy, and got Congress along to allow for this end-run around FISA.
Who's the loser in all this? It starts with Mahmoud, who might soon end up on the no-fly list or worse, with no ability to contest his status, understand how he got put on that list, or take the government to court to right the wrong. Beyond that, when Mahmoud loses, we all end up worse off. If it's Mahmoud today, who's to say that the next "threat" doesn't come from another "type" that needs to be aggressively profiled? What happens if the data mining leads to statistically identifying those prone to drunk driving or child molestation? Who among is isn't for stopping child molestation before it happens? Better keep an eye on those people*.
The founding fathers couldn't have been more clear about the rights of this country's citizens and from where those rights were granted. Here's a hint for you - they aren't granted to you by the state.
*By the way, the only people who will never in a million years be profiled by data mining efforts are gun nuts. Mark my words, we could have a rise of radical racist militias and a profile by which to identify them, but they'd sterilize women likely to get abortions before they ever go to take the guns of the people who might use them to kill other Americans.
mail.com - DHS Ends Criticized Data-Mining Program
(T)he DHS inspector general and privacy office concluded that between 2004 and 2007, three pilot tests of ADVISE used personally identifiable information without first issuing required privacy impact assessments. The privacy office said this "created unnecessary privacy risks."
[snip]
Among the data the privacy office found had been plugged into ADVISE pilot projects were:
--The no-fly list of people barred from domestic air travel and the list of people who require special inspections before flying.
--More than 3.6 million shipping records from a commercial data provider with names of cargo shippers and consignees.
--Terrorist Screening Center lists of people who tried to cross the U.S.-Canadian border at a port-of-entry.
--Classified intelligence reports about illicit traffic in weapons of mass effect.
--Lists of foreign exchange students, immigrants under investigation and people from special interest countries.
Although Knocke said ADVISE "was never used in an operational environment" and DHS had assured Congress in 2006 it was not operational, the inspector general found that "on at least one occasion, the data was used to produce classified intelligence information."
This is where you can start calling "bullshit" on the old trope that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
Wrong.
Caring about governmental encroachment on our civil liberties isn't a personal concern. Do I believe the government is trying to listen in on my phone calls - and I mean me, personally? Nope. But do I think that a law-abiding legitimate businessman of Iraqi descent living in Dearborn, Michigan (let's call him Mahmoud) has more reason to believe he's being profiled? Absolutely.
B-b-b-b-but, you say, if he's not doing anything illegal...
Wrong again, that's not how data mining programs work. Mahmoud from Dearborn fits a profile. His "type" becomes exponentially more likely to be stopped at the airport, questioned by the IRS over faith-based tithing, detained by immigration before and after trips to visit family overseas, and listened to while he's on the phone.
Now, I've got no problem with this if there's reasonable suspicion to criminal activity (or plotting of such), as long as there's oversight (say, from the FISA court, as intended). But this administration would have you believe their ability to handle the terror problem is hamstrung by oversight, and you and your children are less safe as a result.
Bullshit.
The FISA court provided an agile rubber-stamp oversight body through which the government's ability to wiretap legitimate targets was not hindered. This administration wanted the ability to shroud their data collection efforts in secrecy, and got Congress along to allow for this end-run around FISA.
Who's the loser in all this? It starts with Mahmoud, who might soon end up on the no-fly list or worse, with no ability to contest his status, understand how he got put on that list, or take the government to court to right the wrong. Beyond that, when Mahmoud loses, we all end up worse off. If it's Mahmoud today, who's to say that the next "threat" doesn't come from another "type" that needs to be aggressively profiled? What happens if the data mining leads to statistically identifying those prone to drunk driving or child molestation? Who among is isn't for stopping child molestation before it happens? Better keep an eye on those people*.
The founding fathers couldn't have been more clear about the rights of this country's citizens and from where those rights were granted. Here's a hint for you - they aren't granted to you by the state.
*By the way, the only people who will never in a million years be profiled by data mining efforts are gun nuts. Mark my words, we could have a rise of radical racist militias and a profile by which to identify them, but they'd sterilize women likely to get abortions before they ever go to take the guns of the people who might use them to kill other Americans.
Powered by ScribeFire.
