January 31, 2006
Homeland Security will use 3-D technology at Super Bowl
The Homeland Security Department will use 3-D holograms that can reveal shadows, angles, depths and details unseen by conventional imaging to protect the people in and around this weekend's Super Bowl in Detroit. The company providing the technology announced the plans in a press release.
The surveillance effort is likely to include:
- scanning undersides of vehicles for suspicious objects
- face-in-the-crowd recognition and feature-matching
- underwater Detroit River monitoring
- monitoring of street-level festivities
- classified methods of searching for and detecting potential threats
The techonology, LifeVision3D, comes from Intrepid Defense & Security Systems of Birmingham, Michigan. This will be the first public use of the new technology, the company said.
Posted by Kathleen Miller at 11:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Patriot Act balancing act
The sister of a pilot who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has a strongly worded message for Congress: renew the USA Patriot Act. Debra Burlingame's views are published in the Wall Street Journal in an op-ed piece entitled "Our Right to Security."
Burlingame reviews the decisions, policies and "risk-averse" cultures that prevented law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information that might have unraveled the 9/11 plot. She criticizes the media as well as civil libertarians:
Why should we allow enemies to annihilate us simply because we lack the clarity or resolve to strike a reasonable balance between a healthy skepticism of government power and the need to take proactive measures to protect ourselves from such threats? The mantra of civil-liberties hard-liners is to "question authority" -- even when it is coming to our rescue -- then blame that same authority when, hamstrung by civil liberties laws, it fails to save us.
As the Patriot Act expires Friday, Congress' ability to walk the fine line between protection and privacy will continue to be tested.
Posted by Dalia Naamani-Goldman at 05:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 30, 2006
NSA moving many activities to Colorado
William Arkin, national security columnist at the Washington Post, reports that the National Security Agency is centralizing data storage and collection in the Denver area.
His blog entry includes references to other stories written about how Colorado is becoming the hub for activities by a number of important intelligence agencies and activities.
Arkin also includes a reference to an article in "Government Executive Magazine" about the NSA and its spending.
Posted by Nicole Duarte at 12:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 28, 2006
The politics of the USA Patriot Act
The continuing debate over the USA Patriot Act may play a role in who controls Congress following this year's midterm elections.
The Republican National Committee has released this Web ad targeting Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), criticizing Reid for undermining law enforcement by opposing renewal of the act earlier this year (thanks to ABC News' "The Note" for the link).
The ad then enumerates the prosecutorial benefits of the act and urges constituents to contact Reid.
Can the GOP use USA Patriot Act opposition as an effective wedge against the Dems in '06? Too early to tell.
One Democrat, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, may say otherwise. Feingold is considered a serious candidate for the Dems' 2008 presidential nomination largely because of his ability to forge a conservative-liberal coalition in the Senate against renewal of some of the act's more controversial provisions.
Posted by Christopher Kriva at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 27, 2006
Big Brother not such a Big Deal to Americans?
Another poll was released today in regards to finding the balance between civil liberties and the war on terror. I found out about this new LA Times/Bloomberg Poll on MSN Money.
Some relevant parts:
- By 51 percent to 40 percent, those polled said Americans "should be willing to give up some of their civil liberties" to fight terrorism.
- A solid majority, 59 percent to 33 percent, said Congress should reauthorize the Patriot Act. (A dispute over privacy rights that has pitted Bush against virtually all Senate Democrats and a few of the chamber's Republicans has stalled renewal of the anti-terrorism measure.)
- A narrow plurality, 49 percent to 45 percent, said they supported Bush's decision to allow the National Security Agency to intercept, without a warrant, international communications suspected of links to Al Qaeda.
- Almost half (46 percent) said they would not mind if the government monitored their calls "as part of the fight against terrorism"; 53 percent said they would object.
Maxwell, the office manager in Louisiana, was among those who said she would not complain. "I have nothing to hide," she said. "As long as it is used to protect our country, it is fine."
Still, a majority said they wanted Congress to hold hearings on the spying program. And nearly two-fifths (including almost three-fifths of Democrats) said they would consider it an impeachable offense if a congressional investigation concluded that Bush broke the law in authorizing the program.
I found it interesting that almost two-thirds of Americans seem to be OK with government monitoring of their own phone calls. Especially since other aspects of the poll show approval ratings between 30 and 40 percent for both Congress and the President. It seems people are reluctant to trust the government to govern efficiently, but are more willing to trust them to monitor us in the name of security.
Has the age of open information exchange -- on the Internet and in the marketplace -- eased people's anxiety about monitoring of our personal information and correspondence?
Posted by Matt Ford at 02:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It depends what you mean by “surveillance”
A new New York Times/CBS Poll released today once again showed that the way a question is phrased matters. When respondents were asked whether they support the Bush administration’s surveillance program:
Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they supported eavesdropping without warrants "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism."
It may seem like Americans are willing to throw civil liberties out the window for the sake of safety, but the poll drew out more nuance than that. Most respondents said they would only support the monitoring of emails and phone calls if the government was “suspicious” of the person. They did not support infringing on “ordinary” citizens.
It will be interesting to see how the President and the media will label the surveillance program over the coming weeks, and particularly tonight at the State of the Union Address. It sounds like a terrorist monitoring program will fly much better with the American people than a national eavesdropping expedition.
Posted by Laura McGann at 08:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 26, 2006
ChoicePoint Pays for data breach
Data-miner Choicepoint was fined $15 million -- $10 million to the Federal Trade Commission, $5 million to consumers -- after the commission decided that inadequate protections had allowed thieves to penetrate the company's data stores. The FTC ruled that the company's "security and record-handling procedures violated consumers' privacy rights and federal laws."
Scam artists posing as small business customers accessed the ChoicePoint database, "possibly compromising the personal information of 145,000 Americans," the AP reported. At least 750 confirmed cases of fraud resulted from the breach.
"The message to ChoicePoint and others should be clear: Consumers' private data must be protected from thieves," Deborah Platt Majoras, chairman of the FTC, said Thursday in a statement.
It will be interesting to see if this increases legislative interest in security of databases.
Posted by Nicole Duarte at 11:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
China: Sliding off the slippery slope
For many Americans, it might seem a far-fetched possibility that government monitoring of communications to prevent terrorism could evolve into something more sinister.
Still, people interested in civil liberties should keep tabs on how China -- someday, perhaps, the world's leading economic power -- is putting limits on citizens' ability to communicate and get information online.
Even Google, which is fighting a U.S. government subpoena for information about Web searches, has decided it has to go along with Chinese censorship.
Posted by Rich Gordon at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
There's no privacy when you order a pizza
This advertisement of the future produced by the American Civil Liberties Union offers a frightening -- and entertaining -- look at how citizens' information can be condensed, categorized, and made available on a computer interface... even to our favorite pizza delivery place.
It's thought-provoking.
Posted by Phil Stuart at 10:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 25, 2006
Wiretapping becoming a political issue; Hillary weighs in
The Washington Post reports that there is a growing split in opinions about domestic wiretapping. The article predicts that both the Democratic and Republican parties are trying to “shape the debate” on warrantless wiretapping ahead of the congressional elections.
The article prominently features Hillary Clinton’s thoughts on the topic. "My question is, why can't we do what we want to do within the rule of law," Clinton said in the article. Clinton said that the FISA should have been consulted for authorization and comments that gaining this authorization wouldn’t have been very hard.
Clinton acknowledges that intelligence gathering is necessary but argues that it needs to be be done within the limits of the Constitution and the law.
Posted by Blathnaid Healy at 10:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
New York Times reporter gets "fresh"
The White House's domestic eavesdropping program has gotten a lot of attention, but the two New York Times reporters who broke the story aren't exactly household names.
One of the reporters, James Risen, spoke on Monday on NPR's "Fresh Air" hosted by Terry Gross. about breaking the story and his new book, "State of War: The Secret History of the C.I.A. and the Bush Administration".
In December, Risen and colleague Eric Lichtblau broke the news that the Bush administration had authorized a domestic eavesdropping program.
Although it seems Risen feels most Americans will come to accept the domestic eavesdropping program, he calls the anonymous sources who came forward as "patriots." He says the sources felt the program was wrong and, possibly, illegal.
He says there was concern that some of the information that was gathered through the program was used to get warrants through the secret court, FISA. Risen said that altough the program is primarily to discover patterns in domestic calling, at any one time the lines of 500 people are tapped. Those 500 are circulated in and out so the actual number is unknown.
In his book, Risen talks about the program and other major scoops, including the fact that the CIA gave Iran plans for a nuclear weapon, albeit faulty plans.
Risen said that the reporting that needs to be done now is to dig into the depth of domestic spying, not only by the NSA, but other arms of the government.
Posted by Beth Davidz at 06:17 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Thinking twice about Web searches
In the wake of the news last week that AOL and Yahoo had released information about Web searches to the government and that Google had refused to do the same, The New York Times published an article about how this development can affect people's daily lives. Here is an example:
Kathryn Hanson, a former telecommunications engineer who lives in Oakland, Calif., was looking at BBC News online last week when she came across an item about a British politician who had resigned over a reported affair with a "rent boy."It was the first time Ms. Hanson had seen the term, so, in search of a definition, she typed it into Google. As Ms. Hanson scrolled through the results, she saw that several of the sites were available only to people over 18. She suddenly had a frightening thought. Would Google have to inform the government that she was looking for a rent boy - a young male prostitute?
The fact that the government can request Internet search records to investigate certain crimes may cause some to re-evaluate how they use the Internet.
Posted by Faith Okpotor at 05:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Government pays to settle lawsuit over information about "no-fly" list
The FBI and the Transportation Security Administration agreed to pay the ACLU $200,000 to cover the ACLU's legal fees for a lawsuit brought by two San Francisco peace activists who were detained at a San Francisco airport after their names were listed on the "no-fly" list. The activists publish "The War Times," a nationally distrubuted newspaper critical of Bush.
The Associated Press reported that the activists and the ACLU had invoked FOIA to determine how people were placed on the no-fly list, and how they were taken off of it.
"The agencies at first balked at supplying any information to the ACLU. But U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, after privately reviewing secret government data, said the government was making "frivolous claims" about why it could not.
Posted by Kathleen Miller at 05:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Senators' stalemate over privacy, civil liberties and the Patriot Act
A congressional stalemate has emerged as members of congress try to hash out terms for extending and revising the USA Patriot Act. Key areas of dispute revolve around privacy and civil liberties. Key figures include Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. John Sununu, R-N.H.
The main disagreements center on provisions that allow FBI agents to obtain records on terrorism suspects, who have very limited options for challenging such searches. Specter has said the law allows adequate "judicial review" of proposed searches. But Sununu and his allies say the law makes it virtually impossible for targeted people to prevail, even if they have no ties to terrorism.
The current Patriot Act was set to expire on Dec. 31 but has been extended to Feb. 3.
Posted by Laura Spadanuta at 01:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 24, 2006
Be careful what you search for...you might actually find it
Tim Wu of the Columbia Law School weighs in with an interesting article about Google's refusal to comply with a government subpoena seeking search histories to aid in the fight against online porn.
The article highlights some interesting facts about Google's storage of search data. First, every search query you enter scrolls across a screen at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California. Second, all the search queries are stored in a vast database that Google uses to analyze search patterns. Third, your IP address is linked to each and every one of your searches.
Wu proposes a solution that puts the burden squarely on Google:
...the public's demand must be of Google — not the state. It should be that Google please stop keeping quite so much information attached to our IP addresses; please modify logging practices so that all identifying information is stripped. And please run history's greatest "search and delete," right now, and take out the IP addresses from every file that contains everyone's last five years of searches.
Of course, storing and analyzing all that search data helps Google improve a product that everyone seems to use. The data also generates unique features like Zeitgeist, which ranks the most popular Google searches by week, month and year in 21 different countries...including yours.
Posted by Carlos Roig at 09:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Most Google users think their searches are private
From the San Jose Mercury News: A weekend survey indicates most Google users vastly underestimate the amount of personal information the company collects from user searches. Even so, the majority of users surveyed do not want the company to turn over search data to the government.
The Ponemon Institute surveyed approximately 1,000 Google users and found that 89 percent think their searches "are kept private." Nonetheless, 38 percent said they would stop using Google if the company released search data to government officials.
"People have an expectation of privacy when they use Google, and now they are wondering about it," said Larry Ponemon, chair of the institute.
Posted by Jessica Bernstein-Wax at 11:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
"Democrats, Karl? Republicans, too."
New York Times writer Adam Nagourney published an analysis piece on the politics of the secret-until-recently domestic evasdropping program.
How Americans will come to understand the "domestic spying program" will depend on which politicians are able to frame the debate, Nagourney writes.
On the schedule:
- Monday: Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, former head of the National Security Agency set to speak at the National Press Club in Washington.
- Tuesday: Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales will present a legal defense of the spying program
- Wednesday: President Bush will visit NSA headquarters.
Meanwhile, some Republicans sounded off:
* "Democrats, Karl? Republicans, too." - An unnamed Republican bristled at Karl Rove's January 20 salvo against Democrats opponents of the program.
* David Keene, chair of the American Conservative Union, reserved the right to be skeptical. "It is not as clean-cut a political win as the administration thinks that it is."
* Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned the program's legality and defended Democratic critics on Fox News Sunday, according to this partial transcript.
Posted by Nicole Duarte at 10:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 20, 2006
Good resources on domestic surveillance
FindLaw, a fabulous resource on matters having to do with the law, has compiled a page of links (you may need to scroll down the page to find them) that are useful to understanding the context of the National Security Agency's monitoring of telephone and electronic communications.
Posted by Rich Gordon at 05:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Calling all legislators ...
The news of how easy it is to obtain cell phone records from some online vendors broke last week, and now lawmakers are moving to criminalize "pretexting" or the practice of pretending to be the owner of the cell phone account.
Even though many people believe that shady types get access to customer records by hacking, today's article in the New York Times shows that breaches often are permitted by employees, contractors and partners. Many critics believe the onus should be on the the cell phone companies to do a better job of protecting customers' privacy.
What's new: Lawmakers on Capitol Hill and law enforcement agencies are vowing to protect consumers' cell phone records by penalizing those who use deception to obtain customer information. But some experts say the problem won't go away unless phone companies better protect customer data.Bottom line: Experts say there are several steps operators can take to verify that a records request is legitimate, including use of a customer password system, confirmation of each request by sending a text message to the customer's cell phone and implementation of auditing systems at customer service centers.
Posted by Faith Okpotor at 03:52 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The NSA's wiretap dance with the private sector
The National Security Agency has turned to the private sector since its formation in 1949, according to a Jan. 5 story on National Public Radio. After World War II the technology of the NSA - then known as the American Forces Security Agency - was limited. The agency turned to the telegraph companies, which agreed to give a copy of every telegram everyday to the NSA.
When communications switched to satellites the NSA was able to pick up telephone conversations on its own. But, as we move into the digital age, telecommunications is moving from satellites to underwater fiber-optic cables, which are hard to tap.
Telecommunications companies are mandated to give the federal government technical co-operation and must have their wires wiretap- accessible. The Patriot Act makes a provision that telecom companies aren't liable for wiretapping if the federal government presents them with a warrant.
As the New York Times reported, this wasn't the case when the NSA asked the telecoms for access to the massive switches that handle international Internet and phone traffic. Regardless of liability and warrants, some companies are worried about being used for government data mining.
The NSA’s method is to vacuum up as much information as possible and to pass it on to other agencies. So what to do with all the info, including phone calls that still need to be transcribed by human linguists. I turn to the headlines of the Jan. 18 “Daily Show,” in a segment called, "rampant buggery."
(As I side note I also suggest the “Daily Show” interview with former head of the CIA, James Woolsey. There are interesting points about the separation of the FBI and CIA, and civil liberties.)
Posted by Beth Davidz at 03:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL provided government with users' search records
The Los Angeles Times did a follow-up story on Google's refusal to provide the federal government with user search records. The Times article revealed that three major Web sites, Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL, gave government officials the requested data.
The data reportedly contained no personal information about users, and the government says it will use it to evaluate Internet porn searches.
Still, critics are concerned that the government will ultimately seek to identify users if search companies continue to hand over data. Such action could have a chilling effect on free speech:
Search engines maintain, said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
a massive database that reaches into the most intimate details of your life: what you search for, what you read, what worries you, what you enjoy. ... It's critical to protect the privacy of this information so people feel free to use modern tools to find information without the fear of Big Brother looking over their shoulder.
Posted by Jessica Bernstein-Wax at 09:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Privacy depends on government and business
Many private companies are generating profits by providing services to the U.S. government in the rebuilding of Iraq. It makes sense to ask the question: How else are businesses profiting from homeland security?
The revelation by The New York Times that the Bush administration has authorized warrantless surveillance of telephone calls within the United States raises new questions. The Times (original story now in paid archive; you can read a summary on Yahoo!News or MSNBC) also disclosed another way in which government and big business are linked.
... since the Sept. 11 attacks, the leading companies in the industry have been storing information on calling patterns and giving it to the federal government to aid in tracking possible terrorists.
In the past five years, the government has "been quietly encouraging the telecommunications industry to increase the amount of international traffic that is routed through American-based switches," the article says.
Questions: Are the companies being compensated, or just doing this as their contribution to homeland security? How else is information about us being collected by businesses and shared with the government?
Posted by Dalia Naamani-Goldman at 05:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 19, 2006
Government seeks information on usage of online porn
When the government comes looking for information about people's connections with known or suspected terrorists, the average American thinks, "This isn't about me."
But when law enforcement agencies come looking for information about the use of online pornography, the number of people who might be concerned almost certainly gets larger.
That's why it's so interesting that the Justice Department has asked a judge (story from the San Jose Mercury News) to order Google to turn over information about searches for online pornography. As far as I can tell, the department is not asking for personally identifiable information about any searcher for porn; the department is seeking to quantify porn searches, in order to to revive an Internet child protection law struck down two years ago by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, a Google spokesperson says the company will "vigorously" contest the government's request. And the Mercury News quotes a privacy consultant who nicely captures the potential concern of millions of Americans who view porn online:
``This is exactly the kind of case that privacy advocates have long feared,'' said Ray Everett-Church, a South Bay privacy consultant. ``The idea that these massive databases are being thrown open to anyone with a court document is the worst-case scenario. If they lose this fight, consumers will think twice about letting Google deep into their lives.''
The Justice Department says it needs this information to defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. The Supreme Court struck down the law in 2004, saying it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal content sites.
The Mercury News also makes available a PDF file of the Justice Department motion. It's also the topic of the newspaper's Silicon Beat blog.
Posted by Rich Gordon at 12:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 18, 2006
Former congressman decries abuses of homeland security spending
In an opinion piece today in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, former U.S. attorney and congressman Bob Barr criticized various abuses of homeland security grants to states. He cited numerous examples of what he deemed wasteful, pointless spending and speculated that a new formula for doling out federal taxpayer dollars to cities for homeland security projects would not be very effective.
Barr took issue with the following spending projects by states:
- $250,000 for "new, state-of-the-art, air-conditioned garbage trucks" in Newark, N.J.;
- new leather jackets for Washington DC police officers;
- $63,000 for a decontamination unit stored in a warehouse in rural Washington state because there is no hazardous materials team to use it;
- nearly $100,000 for a "training course in incident management" in Michigan that "no one attended."
Posted by Kathleen Miller at 10:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 17, 2006
From iTunes to "SpyTunes"?
Apple Computer's latest release of iTunes (v.6.02) includes a feature called "MiniStore," which automatically suggests music purchases to its users. When a user clicks on a particular song in their song library, related suggestions instantly pop up. Apparently, the user's listening behavior is given a unique identification number.
Many iTunes customers are angry, according to the San Jose Mercury News. The reason: Apple didn't tell customers it was doing this. Taking data from a personal computer and sending it to other computers, without notification, raises reasonable concerns for user privacy.
Posted by Phil Stuart at 08:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What the public thinks of surveillance
A poll was published last week on Americans' opinions on domestic surveillance. I found the part where they broke it down by age to be interesting:
According to the poll, age matters in how people view the monitoring. Nearly two-thirds of those between age 18 to 29 believe warrants should be required, while people 65 and older are evenly divided.Party affiliation is a factor, too. Almost three-fourths of Democrats and one-third of Republicans want to require court warrants.
In other news, The Wahington Post reported yesterday on a translator who was convicted of supporting terrorism, along with lawyer Lynne Stewart. Stewart's case initially received a lot more attention.
Posted by Laura Spadanuta at 05:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Be careful what you type -- at least in China
In The Economist this week, there is a special piece on China and how their traditionally invasive government is taking a step back and protecting citizens' privacy ... at least more than in the past.
Within the article are interesting examples of recent cases in which U.S.-based companies cooperated with the Chinese authorities to halt online criticism of the government:
Earlier this month, Microsoft acceded to a Chinese request to shut down a blog carried on its MSN service and written by an outspoken government critic, Zhao Jing, who also goes by the pen name An Ti. In another case, the Chinese government asked for and received from Yahoo!, an internet company, the information it needed to trace the identity of a Chinese internet user, Shi Tao. Mr Shi was arrested in late 2004 and sentenced last April to ten years in prison on charges of revealing secrets by e-mail. Microsoft and Yahoo! have both reaped withering criticism for co-operating in these cases.
Posted by mmazzotta at 05:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Gore goes on the record
Former Vice President Al Gore made a foray into the national debate on civil liberties Monday, giving a speech calling for the appointment of a special counsel to look into the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program.
The Bush administration asserts that post-9/11 congressional resolutions authorize this type of surveillance without FISA court approval.
Interestingly, Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times points out that Gore's speech was sponsored by both conservative and liberal groups.
Posted by Carlos Roig at 02:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Two lawsuits challenge electronic monitoring
The Associated Press reported today that two lawsuits challenging the Bush administration's "domestic eavesdropping" program were filed in federal court. The suits claim that Bush overstepped his constitutional power in authorizing the surveillance program.
In December, the Los Angeles Times reported that Dick Cheney has defended Bush's move to bypass Congress and the courts as "part of a concerted effort to rebuild presidential powers weakened in the 1970s as a result of the Watergate scandal and the Vietnam War."
Posted by Laura McGann at 02:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 16, 2006
Sen. Specter calls for hearings on domestic eavesdropping
Pensylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" Sunday to say that the committee planned to hold hearings this month on the legality of the recently uncovered domestic telephone eavesdropping program.
The New York Times (free registration required) points out that Specter is the only legislator, thus far, to publicly call for hearings.
Posted by Nicole Duarte at 09:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 15, 2006
Caller identification
This report, out of Friday's "The Situation Room" on CNN, indicates that third parties, for a fee, can hire a data broker to obtain records of calls placed and received on your cell phone. Apparently, once someone files a request with one of these companies, the broker obtains the call records from the cellular provider -- either by pretending to be the actual owner of the phone or by conspiring with a phone company employee.
This points up the fact that once a business maintains data about you, human beings are often the weakest link in the chain protecting your data. What are the implications for other types of private, transactional records, considering the marketplace's apparent willingness to provide such intrusive informational services?
Posted by Christopher Kriva at 01:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 13, 2006
Math: The key to making sense out of data
Business Week has an interesting cover package (Math Will Rock Your World) about the critical role that mathematics -- and mathematicians -- play in fields ranging from law enforcement to product development to advertising to content delivery. A sidebar is about the National Security Agency, the federal department that conducted the controversial electronic surveillance disclosed in December by The New York Times. The story also warns that these math-driven tools could make new threats to privacy possible.
Debates over these issues have flared up many times in the past decade. And they are sure to rear up again as the U.S. Congress investigates the Bush Administration's mining of phone and Internet traffic in its effort to sniff out terrorists. But the merger of sophisticated data mining and higher math has tremendous power to conquer mankind's scourges as well. As Jack Einhorn, chief technical officer of Inform, puts it: "The next Jonas Salk will be a mathematician, not a doctor."
Posted by Rich Gordon at 09:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack