| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Atta Report Hints Solons May Have Acted Too Quickly |
| 2005-08-12 |
| Posted by:DanNY |
| #6 Although this is a valid question, there may be better questions to ask. Like: i may have the right to do so (search), but who gave the govt the power to? what process is the govt using to single out me & not you? Where is the government DENIED the power to search public information? What process is there for the government to "single out" person A vs. person B on any matter? The article contains zero data, as it does not give the ratio of accurate hits to false hits. I could give you a list of everyone in the USA and say it picked the terrorist out. No, you couldn't. Not without being a bald-faced liar, at least. It would be far better to start with a particular suspected person and expand out from there with these types of searches. How do you know this wasn't done? In fact, it's the obvious way FOR doing it -- you look for someone connected to people you know ARE involved, then look for other commonalities -- age, gender, culture, type of residence, educational background, etc. This should be authorised by a judge. Why? Should police be required to get a warrant to investigate when someone calls them to report a crime? Should police be restricted from using crime pattern analysis to allocate manpower? The numbers of these searches should be published. Why? The search should include financial records etc. Huh? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-12 12:49 |
| #5 Once again, The article contains zero data, as it does not give the ratio of accurate hits to false hits. I could give you a list of everyone in the USA and say it picked the terrorist out. "Publically available" is also a bit of weasely phrase. I get the feeling we are not talking about information already in the public domain. What are the controls if it is, to make sure it stays that way? It would be far better to start with a particular suspected person and expand out from there with these types of searches. This should be authorised by a judge. The numbers of these searches should be published. The search should include financial records etc. |
| Posted by: Ulereger Clavigum6227 2005-08-12 12:28 |
| #4 "In what way is searching through public domain information an "invasion of privacy"?" Although this is a valid question, there may be better questions to ask. Like: i may have the right to do so (search), but who gave the govt the power to? what process is the govt using to single out me & not you? If the govt were full of perfect people, 'searching through public domain info' would not bother me... who to scrutinize is ultimately a politital decision. |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2005-08-12 09:54 |
| #3 "It actually does not cause us to rethink this," a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, Timothy Sparapani, said. "The American public's most sensitive personally identifiable information should not be subjected to this kind of experiment unless and until we have some kind of confidence that society is going to get some kind of tangible benefit out of it." Once again, the ACLU shows it's on the other side. I count staying alive the biggest "tangible benefit" of all. And, RC's right...from the way I understand the computer system uses PUBLICLY available information to make linkages (e.g. a souped-up version of Google). I don't want the gov't snooping around my info, either, but if it's snooping in publicly available info for tracking terrorists, I'm all for it! The basis for the attorneys' decision, which Mr. Weldon said he heard about from one of the "Able Danger" officers, is not clear. In general, a 1981 executive order bars intelligence agencies from disseminating information about American citizens and legal permanent residents of this country. However, Atta and the other hijackers did not fit that definition and, in any event, exceptions to the order allow sharing of some terrorism-related information. This sums it up right here! Either we are a nation of laws (like this one, which specifically excludes non-residents and American citizens...of which, Atta fit the bill) or a nation of men (oligarchy...like the Judicial system, making up a right to "privacy," which in MHO, started w/ Roe v. Wade). Don't mean to be off-topic, but we need to either follow the rule of law, or follow the rule of man (I prefer the former). As someone noted yesterday, too, this shouldn't have been held up by the above mentioned EO, but was more than likely, held up by the famous "wall of separation" put up by Gorelick herself (on the 9/11 commission), when she served in the DOJ in the 90's. That wall supposedly keeps intel agencies from talking to each other, and this right here could be the shining example of the stupidity of that rule. Finally, I noted the NY Post's jab here ("so-called", I love it!): Mr. Weldon is currently engaged in a public tussle with the members and staff of the so-called September 11 Commission over why that body omitted all discussion of the "Able Danger" project from its report. |
| Posted by: BA 2005-08-12 09:01 |
| #2 In what way is searching through public domain information an "invasion of privacy"? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-08-12 07:53 |
| #1 I'm a Government Data "Mining" skeptical IT guy. This article does not say how many false postives, or false negatives (partly a known unknown ;) ) where generated for the Atta name to pop up. If people ARE going to use them then these sort of expansion and correlation searches should be authorised by a judge when strong evidence of a likely suspect to pivot the data around is found. Continuos randomised invasions of privacy are a dangerous waste of resources which could be better deployed elsewhere. |
| Posted by: Ulereger Clavigum6227 2005-08-12 07:41 |