January 9 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The following is a great editorial from the Times Union illustrating the poor FBI track record for using technology successfully. It should act as warning for the new biometric mega-clearinghouse:

It seems like an idea for the times — a massive new database that will contain biometric information on people coming and going within the United States. A database, in other words, that will help government officials keep track of potential terrorists entering and leaving the country, as well as searching for wanted criminals. There are just two problems. One is that the FBI will be collecting and storing the information, as part of a $1 billion, 10-year effort. The other is that the FBI will be keeping track of who will have access to the data pool.

The FBI can claim its share of successes in tracking down criminals, of course. That success has burnished the agency’s image over the years. But when it comes to computers, the FBI’s record is deplorable.

One example: In 2004, the agency admitted that its new computer system, which had cost hundreds of millions of dollars and took four years to install, was so bad — and so incapable of finding suspected terrorists — that it had to be junked, and replaced by a new one that won’t be up and running until 2009. An investigation by The Washington Post discovered that the botched system had been installed with no backup plan — a lapse that one computer expert attributed to pure stupidity.

Another example: The Seattle Post Intelligencer, our sister paper, reported in 2003 that a homicide case in Washington state had gone unsolved for 10 years because police officials were unable to match the victim’s dental records when they tapped into the FBI’s National Crime Information Center. It turned out that the dental records had been improperly stored. That raises this question: If the FBI can’t keep track of dental records, which are basic to any investigation, how will it keep track of a new database that will collect iris patterns, facial contours, scars and other physical characteristics? Thomas E. Bush III, assistant director of the agency’s Criminal Justice Information Services Divisions, says the new database will be “bigger, faster, better.” Better than what? The 2004 disaster?

The agency’s plans for monitoring those who will be given access to the database. Why? The answer is in a name — Robert Hanssen, the double agent who used his computer expertise to mine the FBI database for secret intelligence that he later sold to the Soviet Union. The agency says it has since improved internal security, but that’s simply not enough.

Congress must demand assurances that the new computer system will work as promised and that proper safeguards will protect the privacy rights of all Americans. One computer debacle costing hundreds of millions of dollars was bad enough. A $1 billion follow-up would be intolerable.

THE ISSUE: The FBI plans a huge database to collect biometric information.

THE STAKES: Strong safeguards are needed to prevent abuses.

Posted in Biometrics | No Comments »

January 9 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

The China Post has reported that:

“An appeal court Thursday handed down suspended prison sentences on two former South Korean spy chiefs convicted of illegal wiretapping. The Seoul High Court upheld a lower court decision last year to sentence Lim Dong-won and Shin Kun to three years in prison for overseeing the wiretapping of politicians and businessmen by intelligence officials.”

Is wiretapping like murder in terms of legality and punishment - the more powerful the target the more probable a prosecution? For example, if the target is a famous or powerful individual it’s an assassination, the perpetrator accused and tried publicly; however, if millions are killed for whatever reason it’s simply mass murder, blame distributed widely with justice not necessarily forthcoming. Likewise, if an unauthorized or unwarranted wiretap is conducted on an influential person the act is illegal and punishable under the law, however, if unwarranted interception is widespread and includes eavesdropping on millions it’s just a matter of national security.

It’s something to think about anyway.

Posted in Surveillance | No Comments »