The Dumbing Down Of U.S. Intelligence; And, Why Metadata, And The ‘Haystack’ Matter — In Combating Terrorism And Protecting The U.S. Homeland – ‘You Need A Haystack….To Find A Needle’
The above is the title of an Op-Ed by Gordon Crovitz in the May 11, 2015 edition of The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Crovitz begins by noting that “FBI Director James Comey warned last week that the American Islamists who tried to assassinate free-speech advocates at a cartoon exhibition near Dallas, Texas…..are not alone. There are “hundreds, maybe thousands” of potential terrorists in the U.S. being inspired by overseas groups.” “The haystack is the entire country,” he said. “We are looking for needles; but, increasingly the needles are unavailable to us.”
“The needles will be even harder to find, if Congress weakens the Patriot Act, by reducing the intelligence available to national security,” and law enforcement agencies. “With the rise of the Islamic State and its global recruiting tools, intelligence agencies should be allowed to join the “big data” revolution,” Mr. Crovitz wrote.
“Edward Snowden’s data theft raised privacy alarms; but, by now — it’s clear that no one working for the National Security Agency (NSA), leaked confidential data — other than Snowden himself,” Mr. Crovitz correctly observes. “He evaded the 300 lawyers and compliance officers who monitor how NSA staff use data.”
“POTUS Obama, last year, recalled how the 9/11 hijackers escaped detection — because laws prohibited NSA from gathering and connecting the dots. He explained that the Patriot Act was passed, to “address a gap identified after 911,” by having intelligence agencies collect anonymous metadata — date, time, and duration of phone calls. But, POTUS Obama reversed himself and now wants to gut the program,” Mr. Crovitz warns. “Instead of the NSA gathering call information, phone companies would hold the data. With multiple, unconnected databases, the NSA would no longer be able to access data to mine. There wouldn’t be dots to connect to threats. As for privacy, the phone companies’ databases would be less secure than the NSA’S.”
“Lawmakers will decide this month whether to extend the Patriot Act or, to water it down. Instead, they should update it to maximize both privacy, and intelligence,” Mr. Crovitz argues. “Technology now has the answer, if only politicians would get out of the way.”
“Recent innovations in big data allow staggering amounts of information to be collected and mined. These data deliver correlations based on an individually anonymous basis. This work was originally done to support the chief revenue engine of the Internet — advertising. The technology generates increasingly targeted marketing messages based on an individuals’ online activities.”
“The techniques have other applications. Google used them to become better than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at predicting flu outbreaks by monitoring search terms like “flu medicine,” by location. Canadian researchers studied thousands of premature babies, and identified symptoms that precede fevers. Cities apply predictive policing by mining online data to assign cops where they’re needed.”
“The fast shift to self-driving cars is possible, because of data transmitted among vehicles. Small drones share data that keep them from crashing into one another. A Brown University researcher discovered how banks could use metadata about people’s cell phone usage to determine their creditworthiness.”
“The Patriot Act was written in 2001, before any of these advances. It lets the NSA keep anonymous data about who is calling whom for five years; but, it isn’t able to apply algorithms to find suspicious patterns. Analysts may examine call logs for suspicious links, only if there is a pre-existing “reasonable, articulable suspicion” of terrorism, or another threat to national security. There were 170 such searches last year,” [2014].
“Before the Snowden leaks two years ago, Intelligence agencies had planned to ask Congress to broaden their access to anonymous data — so they could use modern tools of big data. Technology has moved far ahead, leaving intelligence -gathering stupider,” Mr. Crovitz wrote.
“A measure of how far behind the technology curve the intelligence agencies have become is that one of the would-be cartoon killers posted a message on Twitter beforehand, with the hashtag#TexasAttack. Law enforcement [authorities] didn’t spot it until after the attack. In contrast, algorithms for delivering advertising parse signals such as hashtags to deliver relevant ads in real time…before the online page loads.”
“In their 2013 book, “Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, And Think,”Viktor Mayer-Schonberger and Kenneth Cukier describe the history of information: “As centuries passed, we opted for more information flows rather than less, and to guard against its excesses — not primarily through censorship; but, through rules that limited the misuse of information.”
In conclusion, Mr. Crovitz writes, “Congress should insist that the NSA ensure its data are used properly — no more Snowdens — but, also give the agency authority to catch up to how the private sector uses data. Politicians should update the Patriot Act by permitting the intelligence use of data to prevent terrorism.”
Mapping Terror Networks: Why Metadata And The ‘Haystack’ Matters
Philip Mudd, former Deputy Director of the CIA’s Counter-Terrorism Center, and Senior Intelligence Adviser to the FBI, [at the time his article was published], wrote an Op-Ed in the Dec. 30, 2014 Wall Street Journal noting that the CIA, FBI, and the entire U.S. Intelligence Community and national security establishment had devoted countless hours as to “how best can [we] clarify [and posture ourselves regarding] the blurring picture of an emerging terror conspiracy [aimed at the United States] originating overseas, or inside the United States. “How can we identify the key players (network/link analysis) and the broader network of their fundraisers [enablers], radicalizers, travel facilitators and others….quickly enough so that they can’t succeed?,” as well as protect civil liberties. “And,” Mr. Mudd adds, “how do we ensure that we’ve ‘mapped’ the network enough to dismantle it?; or at a minimum, disrupt it?”
Mr. Mudd observes, “in essence, you need a haystack — in order to find a needle.” Last year, Federal Appeals Court Judge William H. Pauley ruled NSA metadata collection lawful; and added, “the government needs a wide net that can isolate gossamer contacts among suspected terrorists in an ocean of seemingly disconnected data; HUMINT is the more desirable method of collecting this kind of information — but, gathering critical HUMINT is often difficult and time consuming,” not to mention that the Obama administration has been great at droning terrorists; but, hasn’t added a single individual to Guantanamo Bay Prison. Dead men tell no tales. You can’t get critical HUMIINT — if you stick your head in the sand and refuse to establish an interrogation facility for this very purpose. Treating terrorists as criminals to be tried in a ‘normal’ court of law is absurd, counterproductive, and dangerous.
As Mr. Mudd wrote at the time, “mapping a network of people is simple in concept; but, complex in practice: find the key operators, and then find the support group. Map a network poorly, and you may miss peripheral players who will recreate a conspiracy after the core of conspirators are arrested. The goal,” Mr. Mudd said, “is to eliminate the entire spider-web of conspiracy; cutting off a piece like an arm of a starfish, is a poor second choice — the starfish’s arm — regenerates.”
“Investigators also need an historical pool of data,” Mr. Mudd argued at the time, “that they can access only when they have information that starts with a known, or suspected conspirator — in the middle of a spider-web they don’t fully understand,” and is missing a few corners.
Who is watchers is a legitimate concern; and, a healthy skepticism about government claims for access to even more personal data…is desirable, warranted, and needed. But, the further and further we move away — in time — from the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack here on the U.S. homeland — the more we seem to lose the raison d’ tere for why we passed the Patriot Act in the first place. As the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement authorities with respect to the mass collection of phone data are allowed to atrophy and erode — our ability to ferret out and discover potential terrorist attacks against the U.S. homeland also decay.
I am not sure I know the right answer as to where the balance lied — between the protection of civil liberties, versus the requirement to collect ‘enough’ data — that enables our intelligence and law enforcement professionals to — connect the dots. But, I think I know one thing for sure. If we do suffer a large-scale terrorist event here at home — on the scale of 9/11 or worse — and, it is determined that we likely would have been able to discover this event before hand — if we had allowed a more reasonable big data mining strata — there will be hell to pay — and, perhaps a Patriot Act on steroids.
It is easy to criticize law enforcement and intelligence agencies desires for greater authority and flexibility in regards to the collection of data; but, how you see it — depends on where you sit. If yyou are charged with protecting the American homeland, it is a very difficult balancing act — with few clear answers. V/R, RCP
No comments:
Post a Comment