U.S. gov't terror ratings draw outrage

[LuxuryItem]

!!!

A leader of the new Democratic Congress, business travelers and privacy advocates expressed outrage Friday over the unannounced assignment of terrorism risk assessments to American international travelers by a computerized system managed from an unmarked, two-story brick building in Northern Virginia.

Incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont pledged greater scrutiny of such government database-mining projects after reading that during the past four years millions of Americans have been evaluated without their knowledge to assess the risks that they are terrorists or criminals.

“Data banks like this are overdue for oversight,” said Leahy, who will take over Judiciary in January. “That is going to change in the new Congress.”

The Associated Press reported Thursday that Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders since 2002 have been assessed by the Homeland Security Department’s computerized Automated Targeting System, or ATS.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years. Some or all data in the system can be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring, contracting and licensing decisions. Courts and even some private contractors can obtain some of the data under certain circumstances.

[LuxuryItem]

Re: U.S. gov’t terror ratings draw outrage

Full article.

U.S. gov’t terror ratings draw outrage

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN, Associated Press WriterSat Dec 2, 6:16 AM ET

A leader of the new Democratic Congress, business travelers and privacy advocates expressed outrage Friday over the unannounced assignment of terrorism risk assessments to American international travelers by a computerized system managed from an unmarked, two-story brick building in Northern Virginia.

Incoming Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont pledged greater scrutiny of such government database-mining projects after reading that during the past four years millions of Americans have been evaluated without their knowledge to assess the risks that they are terrorists or criminals.

“Data banks like this are overdue for oversight,” said Leahy, who will take over Judiciary in January. “That is going to change in the new Congress.”

The Associated Press reported Thursday that Americans and foreigners crossing U.S. borders since 2002 have been assessed by the Homeland Security Department’s computerized Automated Targeting System, or ATS.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years. Some or all data in the system can be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring, contracting and licensing decisions. Courts and even some private contractors can obtain some of the data under certain circumstances.

“It is simply incredible that the Bush administration is willing to share this sensitive information with foreign governments and even private employers, while refusing to allow U.S. citizens to see or challenge their own terror scores,” Leahy said. This system “highlights the danger of government use of technology to conduct widespread surveillance of our daily lives without proper safeguards for privacy.”

The concerns spread beyond Congress.

“I have never seen anything as egregious as this,” said Kevin Mitchell, president of the Business Travel Coalition, which advocates for business travelers. It’s “evidence of what can happen when there isn’t proper oversight and accountability.”

By late Friday, the government had received 22 written public comments about its after-the-fact disclosure of the program last month in the Federal Register, a fine-print compendium of federal rules. All either opposed it outright or objected to the lack of a direct means for people to correct any errors in the database about themselves.

“As a U.S. citizen who spends much time outside the U.S., I can understand the need for good security,” wrote one who identified himself as Colin Edmunds. “However, just as I would not participate in a banking/credit card system where I have no recourse to correct or even view my personal data, I cannot accept the same of my government.”

Privacy advocates also were alarmed.

“Never before in American history has our government gotten into the business of creating mass `risk assessment’ ratings of its own citizens,” said Barry Steinhardt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We are stunned” the program has been undertaken “with virtually no opportunity for the public to evaluate or comment on it.”

The Homeland Security Department says the nation’s ability to spot criminals and other security threats “would be critically impaired without access to this data.”

And on Friday as the normal daily flow of a million or more people entered the United States by air, sea and land, the ATS program’s computers continued their silent scrutiny. At that Virginia building with no sign, the managers of the National Targeting Center allowed an Associated Press photographer to briefly roam their work space.

But he couldn’t reveal the building’s exact location. None of the dozens of workers under the bright fluorescent lights could be named. Some could not be photographed.

The only clue he might have entered a government building was a montage of photos in the reception area of President Bush’s visit to the center. But there was only one guard and a sign-in book.

Inside, red digital clocks on the walls showed the time in Istanbul, Baghdad, Islamabad, Bangkok, Singapore, Tokyo, and Sydney. Although billboard-size video screens on the walls showed multiple cable news shows, there was little noise in the basketball-court-sized main workroom. Each desk had dual computer screens and earphones to hear the video soundtrack. Conferences were held in smaller workrooms divided by glass walls from the windowless main room.

Round the clock, the targeters from Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection agency analyze information from multiple sources, not just ATS. They compare names to terrorist watch lists and mine the Treasury Enforcement Communications System and other automated systems that bring data about cargo, travelers and commercial workers entering or leaving the 317 U.S. ports, searching for suspicious people and cargo.

Almost every person entering and leaving the United States by air, sea or land is assessed based on ATS’ analysis of their travel records and other data, including items such as where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

Government officials could not say whether ATS has apprehended any terrorists. Based on all the information available to them, federal agents turn back about 45 foreign criminals a day at U.S. borders, according to Homeland Security’s Customs and Border Protection spokesman Bill Anthony. He could not say how many were spotted by ATS.

Officials described how the system works: applying rules learned from experience with the activities and characteristics of terrorists and criminals to the traveler data. But they would not describe in detail the format in which border agents see the results or in which the databases store the results of the ATS risk assessments.

Acting Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Paul Rosenzweig told reporters Friday they could call it scoring. “It can be reduced to a number,” he said, but he clearly preferred the longer description about how the rules are used.

---

On the Net:

DHS privacy impact statement: http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy_pia_cbp_ats.pdf

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061202/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/traveler_screening

[Mamaof3]

Re: U.S. gov't terror ratings draw outrage

I realize that we're walking a fine line here. But really, I think I'd prefer that they go do whatever they need to do to ensure the safety of me and my loved ones, I have nothing to hide. If they want to listen in on calls over to pak and hear about the latest stomach virus, the upcoming dance recital, well heck they're welcome to it.

These days, you never know who's going to strap a bomb on their back or who would drive a plane into a building. So they build "profiles" and take the "more likely" candidates for further scrutiny. So WHAT? Especially when its for our own good. Wouldnt you rather be safe than sorry?

[LuxuryItem]

Re: U.S. gov’t terror ratings draw outrage

@Mamaof3

These days, you never know who’s going to strap a bomb on their back or who would drive a plane into a building.

Bush used similar fear tactics to invade a country. Going well don’t you think. Let’s invade some more countries cuz you never know who’s going to do harm, right.

@Mamaof3

So they build “profiles” and take the “more likely” candidates for further scrutiny.

More likely candidate?!!

Who determines that?

How is it determined?

Muslims with beards? Or arresting imams and then de-planing them from their flights?

Why not extend such profiling to curb/prevent other ills of the society? Genetic disorders? Psychological proclivities towards insane behavior? I say all students of bio-pharma should be monitored via neck/ankle collars cuz I don’t trust what they are capable of. Infact, they all should register with the local police stations. Also, women who lift weights should be made to seek anger-management and violence suppression counselling. God knows what those sickos are capable of. “Wouldnt you be rather safe than sorry”?

It was recently reported by Keith Olbermann that the guy who mailed antrx in envelopes was a white republican! He easily escaped such profiling didn’t he.

Benjamin Franklin said, “the man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.” Truer words were never spoken. :k:

[Mamaof3]

Re: U.S. gov't terror ratings draw outrage

Very good points LI. Although listening in on phone calls or profiling passengers at the airport is a bit different from invading a country...but yes, where do you draw the line, it would become harder and harder . I (kind of) retract what I said

[Amorphous]

Re: U.S. gov’t terror ratings draw outrage

@LuxuryItem

Bush used similar fear tactics to invade a country. Going well don’t you think. Let’s invade some more countries cuz you never know who’s going to do harm, right.

More likely candidate?!!

Who determines that?

How is it determined?

Muslims with beards? Or arresting imams and then de-planing them from their flights?

Ladies and gentlemen, to get the answers to the questions raised by LI, we invited Ann Coulter, a fair and balanced commentator, to our show.

Ann, thanks for coming in, whats your reaction to this liberal propaganda?

Impressive analytical skills Ann!

Don’t go away, we’ll be back with our next segment.

[LuxuryItem]

Re: U.S. gov't terror ratings draw outrage

@Mamaof3

Very good points LI. Although listening in on phone calls or profiling passengers at the airport is a bit different from invading a country...but yes, where do you draw the line, it would become harder and harder . I (kind of) retract what I said

Another thing to keep in mind is that these tactics could stir up unnecessary resentments that will make the world less safer! You can't build bridges between different religious communities accross the globe when you are singling out members of a single religion & pulling them aside for 2+ hour interrogations before their flights.

[saieen]

Re: U.S. gov’t terror ratings draw outrage

@Mamaof3

I realize that we’re walking a fine line here. But really, I think I’d prefer that they go do whatever they need to do to ensure the safety of me and my loved ones, I have nothing to hide. If they want to listen in on calls over to pak and hear about the latest stomach virus, the upcoming dance recital, well heck they’re welcome to it.

These days, you never know who’s going to strap a bomb on their back or who would drive a plane into a building. So they build “profiles” and take the “more likely” candidates for further scrutiny. So WHAT? Especially when its for our own good. Wouldnt you rather be safe than sorry?

you are more than welcome to give up ur privacy for security but please not at the expense of others.america is not a 1 person/family country…U…so if you are willing to give up something for your family’s security n safety then by all means do so.but remember by giving up one right you’ll only make them more hungry for more.where are you going to draw the line and say NO, enough is enough? do you really think they’ll listen to you then? heck i don’t think they’ll even let you speak bcos by then you’ll have no RIGHTS that will help you in any way.remember its easy to give up but who knows how long will it take you to get it back.:halo: