The
case study was all about the creation of the database of suspected terrorists
known as the terrorist watch list when the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks and established
the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, or TSC, to consolidate information about
suspected terrorists from multiple government agencies into a single list to
enhance inter-agency communication. Records for the watch list database are
provided by two sources: The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) managed by
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence provides identifying
information on individuals with ties to international terrorism and the FBI
which provides identifying information on individuals with ties to purely
domestic terrorism. There is still more work to be done to optimize the list’s
usefulness there has also been public outcry resulting from the size of the
list and well-publicized incidents of obvious non-terrorists finding that they
are included on the list. Information about the process for inclusion on the
list must necessarily be carefully protected if the list is to be effective
against terrorists. However, the government agencies populate their watch lists
by performing wide sweeps of information gathered on travelers, using many
misspellings and alternate variations of the names of suspected terrorists.
This often leads to the inclusion of people who do not belong on watch lists,
known as “false positives.” Notable examples of ‘false positives’ include
Michael Hicks, an 8-year-old New Jersey Cub Scout who is continually stopped at
the airport for additional screening and the late senator Ted Kennedy, who had
been repeatedly delayed in the past because his name resembles an alias once
used by a suspected terrorist. Like Kennedy, Hicks may have been added because
his name is the same or similar to a different suspected terrorist. In order to
improve screening and help reduce the number of people erroneously marked for
additional investigation would be to use a more sophisticated system involving
more personal data about individuals on the list. The TSA is developing just
such a system, called “Secure Flight,” but it has been continually delayed due
to privacy concerns regarding the sensitivity and safety of the data it would
collect. Other similar surveillance programs and watch lists, such as the NSA’s
attempts to gather information about suspected terrorists, have drawn criticism
for potential privacy violations.
CASE
STUDY QUESTIONS
1.
What concepts in this chapter are illustrated in this case?
The
concept illustrated was the creation of a database of suspected terrorists also
known as terrorists watch list or watch list database and the collaboration of
the use of different technologies to access individual’s information.
2. Why was the consolidated terror watch list
created? What are the benefits of the list?
The
consolidated terror watch list created in order to have an access to identify
information of any individuals if it ties to purely domestic terrorism and/or
international terrorism. The benefits will be acquired of the list is
productivity, up to-date information, Quick -decision making,
a standard license and registration check was
carried out.
3. Describe some of the weaknesses of the watch
list. What management, organization, and technology factors are responsible for
these weaknesses?
When the computerized name-matching
system generates a “hit” against a watch list record such as a wide sweeps of
information, various policies for nominations, misspelling and alternate
variations of the names of terrorist’s suspects, the airline or agency will
review each potential match. This often leads to the inclusion of people who do
not belong on watch lists, known as “false positives.” It also results in some
people being listed multiple times under different spellings of their names. Matches
that are clearly positive or exact matches that are inconclusive are referred
to the applicable screening agency’s intelligence or operations center and to the
TSC for closer examination. In turn, TSC checks its databases and other
sources, including classified databases maintained by the NCTC and FBI to
confirm whether the individual is a positive, negative, or inconclusive match
to the watch list record.
4.
How effective is the system of watch lists described in this case study?
Explain your answer.
The
process of consolidating information from disparate agencies was slow and
painstaking one because there is still more work to be done to optimize the
list’s usefulness and to avoid list inaccuracies.
5.
If you were responsible for the management of the TSC watch list database, what
steps would you take to correct some of these weaknesses?
I
would like to do first research the data that has been included on the list and
gathering facts why an individual has been included in the list and what
suspicious behavior consulted their inclusion on the list and then establish a
protocol to ensure that a person is clearly False positive will should be
removed from the list to avoid additional variations of examinations.
Lastly,
changing the details that are recorded for a suspect to included detailed
descriptions of that individual as there are so many people travelling in today
society, I would so look at developing a group that would screen passengers
rather than on an airline level.
6. Do you believe that the terror watch list
represents a significant threat to individuals’ privacy or Constitutional
rights? Why or why not?
The
terror watch list represented a significant threat to individuals privacy or
constitutional rights accurately especially to those victim of inclusion in a
list that tracks every potential terrorist at the cost of unnecessarily
tracking some innocents, and a list that fails to track many terrorists in an
effort to avoid tracking innocents make matters worse for those already
inconvenienced by wrongful inclusion on the list it is because currently there is no simple and quick
redress process for innocents that hope to remove themselves from it.
No comments:
Post a Comment