[Infowarrior] - Senators pledge scrutiny of federal data mining

Wed Jan 10 22:20:03 EST 2007

Senators pledge scrutiny of federal data mining

By Anne Broache
http://news.com.com/Senators+pledge+scrutiny+of+federal+data+mining/2100-102
8_3-6149118.html

Story last modified Wed Jan 10 13:38:03 PST 2007

WASHINGTON--Senate Democrats said on Wednesday they will monitor the
possible privacy threats lurking in data-mining programs created by the Bush
administration, but avoided criticizing the president directly.

By devoting the first Senate Judiciary Committee hearing of the new year to
the topic, incoming Chairman Patrick Leahy said he wanted to put the Bush
administration on notice: Congress will no longer stand idle while the
executive branch continues an "unchecked explosion" in computerized sifting
of huge volumes of sensitive personal information, he said. But Leahy and
his colleagues said they were interested in collecting information on data
mining, not banning the practice.

"Congress is overdue in taking stock of the proliferation of these databases
that increasingly are collecting more information about each and every
American," the veteran senator from Vermont said. Leahy added that he plans
a series of hearings on privacy-related issues during the upcoming
congressional session.

According to a 2004 government report (PDF), at least 52 federal agencies
are operating or devising at least 199 different data-mining programs.
Citing those figures, Leahy said he believed such activities--frequently
justified in the name of combating terrorism--may have value but "often lack
adequate safeguards to protect privacy and civil liberties."

Congressional skepticism of government data-mining projects by Democrats and
Republicans alike is nothing new. In January 2003, the Senate voted
unanimously to restrict a Pentagon data-mining program known as Total
Information Awareness--which proposed linking databases from sources such as
credit card companies, medical insurers and motor vehicle agencies in an
effort to snag terrorists--because of privacy concerns.

In an attempt to step up oversight, Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), along with
Leahy, Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) and John Sununu (R-N.H.), plan to jointly
reintroduce on Wednesday a legislative proposal called the Federal Agency
Data Mining Reporting Act. Feingold proposed nearly identical versions in
both 2003 and 2005, but they died without a floor vote.

The bill would require the heads of all federal agencies engaged in data
mining to submit a report on numerous aspects of the operation. These would
include its goals, the data sources and technology used, an assessment of
its expected effectiveness and an explanation of its potential privacy
impact on individuals. That report is supposed to be updated "not less
frequently than annually" and made public, according to the bill. However,
the agencies have the option of submitting a classified "annex" that may be
available only to certain congressional committees.

At Wednesday's hearing, Feingold said he hoped "these reports will help
Congress--and to the degree appropriate, the public--finally understand what
is going on behind the closed doors of the executive branch."

In the papers
Leahy said his renewed push for oversight has been fueled in part by press
reports, which have shed light on a number of recent examples of troubling
data-mining regimes.

Perhaps most recently, the Washington Post reported that through a system
known as OneDOJ, the Department of Justice has amassed more than a million
case records, including incident reports and interrogation summaries reports
involving people who have not been formally charged or convicted. Before
that, the Department of Homeland Security published a notice indicating it
has been using data mining to compile "risk assessments" on travelers to the
United States, as part of a cargo-screening program known as the Automated
Targeting System. A department official has said publicly that the effort
has been mischaracterized and is not invasive to privacy.

On Wednesday, Leahy asked a panel of invited witnesses whether they could
point to any scientific study making a case for data mining. In their
testimony, the five witnesses--representatives of think tanks and advocacy
groups-- all voiced at least some degree of support for increased checks on
government data-mining ventures.

None of the panelists could come up with an answer, although James Carafano,
a research fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said "behavior
science modeling is a rapidly developing field."

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato
Institute and an adviser to Homeland Security's privacy office, took a
dimmer view of the practice. He argued that data mining could never be a
useful tool because inevitably high "false-positive" rates would subject too
many innocent Americans to undue scrutiny and violate their privacy.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the outgoing Republican chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, said he agreed with the need "to keep the various federal
agencies on their toes," but saw no need to be overly restrictive of data
mining.

"Within the range of investigative tools, if there is no adverse action, if
there's no specific prejudice to the individual, then I think there is
latitude for law enforcement to look for patterns (in data)," the
Pennsylvania senator and former prosecutor said.

The new Democratic majority's interest in upping its checks on Bush
administration antiterrorism policies has not been limited to the Senate
this week.

The House of Representatives on Tuesday evening voted 299-128 to approve
what is intended to be heightened independence for the two-year-old Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which is charged with advising the
White House on such matters and only recently held its first public meeting.

The proposal, should it be approved by the Senate and signed by the
president, would remove the five-member board from the president's office,
making it an independent agency; grant it subpoena power; require that all
of its members, not just its chairmen, be confirmed by the Senate; and
require it to submit periodic reports on its findings, among other things.

The 277-page legislative package in which the proposal is embedded, however,
has proved controversial and may not sail so easily through the Senate.
Democrats have portrayed the first item on their 100-hours agenda as an
attempt at implementing the 9/11 Commission's recommendations on issues like
aviation security and emergency communications once and for all, but critics
have said the proposal is nothing more than an unfunded political move.