|
January 23, 2003
The Honorable John Warner
Chairman
Senate Committee on Armed Services
228 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Carl Levin
Senate Committee on Armed Services
228 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Warner and Senator Levin:
On behalf of USACM, the Association for Computing Machinery's
U.S. Public Policy Committee, we are writing to express
some concerns regarding the Total Information Awareness
(TIA) Program, sponsored by the Department of Defense.
We share the nation's desire to improve security against
terrorist acts, and we acknowledge that significant
contributions can be made to public safety and national defense with advances
in computing technology.
Research into areas such as new data mining and fusion methods
and privacy-enhancement technologies is
needed and welcomed. However, the overall
surveillance goals of TIA suffer from fundamental
flaws that are based in exceedingly
complex and intractable issues of human nature, economics
and law. Technological research alone cannot
make a system such as TIA viable.
As computer scientists and engineers
we have significant doubts that the computer-based
TIA Program will achieve its stated goal of "countering
terrorism through prevention". Further,
we believe that the vast amount of information and
misinformation collected by any system resulting from
this program is likely to be misused to the detriment of many innocent American citizens.
Because of serious security, privacy, economic, and personal
risks associated with the development of a vast database
surveillance system, we recommend a rigorous, independent
review of these aspects of TIA. Such a review
should include an examination of the technical feasibility
and practical reality of the entire program.
USACM would be pleased to assist in such an effort.
Security Risks.
Immense databases, such as are being proposed by TIA - whether
operated by governmental or commercial organizations
- represent substantial security and privacy risks
in their own right. An all-encompassing database,
compiled from private and governmental databases including
financial, medical, educational, telephone, and travel
records, will contain large quantities of sensitive
information. One or more such databases would
provide new targets for exploitation and attack by
malicious computer users, criminals, and terrorists.
It is unlikely that sufficiently robust databases
of the required size and complexity, whether centralized
or distributed, can be constructed, financed, and
effectively employed in a secure environment, even
with significant research advances. A single
individual who has a personal or political vendetta,
or who has been compromised
by blackmail or greed, could do great harm.
Yet, tens of thousands of systems administrators,
domestic law enforcement staff, and intelligence personnel
will be able to access the data; the security of the
data will depend on the trustworthiness of every one
of them. This is not something that can
be guaranteed with technology.
The databases proposed by TIA also would increase the risk
of identity theft by providing a wealth of personal
information to anyone accessing the databases.
A recent case of massive identity theft involved a
computer help-desk employee who abused his access
to sensitive passwords from banks and credit companies
to obtain personal information on over 30,000 people
over a period of three years. The employee then
sold the personal information to a number of scam
artists. Imagine how much more damage could
be done with a database as comprehensive as that envisioned
by those who support the TIA. Imagine how effective
a terrorist organization could be if it could use
those to pass themselves off as trustworthy citizens
who hold security clearances.
Privacy Risks.
Privacy is a fundamental American value. Fair Information
Practices were developed
because policymakers recognized that there are critical
issues of privacy when aggregating data that was collected
for other purposes. First formulated by a Department
of Health, Education and Welfare committee in 1973,
the Code of Fair Information Practices is the foundation
for the federal Privacy Act of 1974 and the privacy
laws of the country. It prohibits secret databases
and mandates fairness, accountability, and due process
for individuals about whom information is gathered.
The need for oversight and control is especially great
when aggregation and analysis of personal information
is done without the knowledge
or consent of the people being monitored.
It is misleading to suggest that "privacy enhancing technologies"
within TIA can protect people's privacy, because by
definition surveillance compromises privacy.
Furthermore, the secrecy inherent in TIA implies that
citizens could not verify that information about them
is accurate and shielded from misuse. Worse
yet would be the resulting lack of protection against
harassment or blackmail by individuals who have inappropriately
obtained access to an individual's information, or
by government agencies that misuse their authority.
Again, these are concerns that cannot
be completely addressed, even with advances
in technology.
Economic Risks.
The success of electronic commerce in the U.S. may be threatened by TIA. Independent research has repeatedly
shown that ensuring confidence in privacy preservation
is fundamental to the continued growth of electronic
commerce, a technology in which the U.S. is preeminent
and on which a significant part of our future economic
growth depends. In addition, as most non-Americans
would oppose allowing the U.S. government
to access private information about them, we could
expect the development of e-commerce systems that
exclude the U.S., thereby
depriving American companies of significant export
opportunities. For example, a European Union
subsidiary of a U.S. based e-commerce
company might be forbidden
from running the company's systems in the EU because
of the EU's Data Privacy
Directive. Alternatively, if privacy restrictions
elsewhere in the world conflict with TIA-inspired
surveillance, companies may be forced to develop and
operate expensive, parallel systems of record-keeping
for non-U.S. customers.
Finally, the cost of identity theft to businesses, government,
and victims is significant and increasing. National
bank regulators approximated half a million cases
of identity theft a year. Costs due to identity
theft are currently estimated
to be in the billions of dollars. Not only will
all these stolen identities introduce "noise"
into the TIA database, the potential for more significant
theft via this aggregated database system could greatly
magnify the total costs to citizens, businesses, and
government.
Personal Risks.
Because TIA would combine some types of automated data-mining with statistical analysis, there would be a significant
personal cost for many Americans. Any type of
statistical analysis inevitably results in some number
of false positives - in this case incorrectly labeling
someone as a potential terrorist. As the entire
population would be subjected
to TIA surveillance, even a small percentage of false
positives would result in a large number of law-abiding
Americans being mistakenly labeled.
For example, suppose the system has an
99.9% accuracy rate. We believe that having
only 0.1% of records being misclassified as belonging to potential terrorists would
be an unachievable goal in practice. However,
if records for everyone in the U.S. were processed monthly, even this unlikely low rate of false
positives could result in as many as 3 million citizens
being wrongly identified each year. More
realistic assumptions about the percentage of false
positives would drive the number even higher.
Research to increase accuracy and eliminate false
positives in such systems is clearly worthwhile, but
the rate can never be reduced
to zero while maintaining some functionality.
Is any level of false positive acceptable - and Constitutional
- in such a system?
The existence of TIA would impact
the behavior of both real terrorists and law-abiding
individuals. Real terrorists are likely to go
to great lengths to make certain that their behavior
is statistically "normal," and ordinary
people are likely to avoid perfectly
lawful behavior out of fear of being labeled
"Un-American."
To summarize, we appreciate that the stated goal of TIA is
to fund research into new technologies and algorithms
that could be used in a large
surveillance system in the service of eliminating
terrorist acts. However, we are extremely concerned
that the program has been initiated and some projects
already funded apparently without independent oversight
and without sufficient thought being given to real
constraints - technical, legal, economic, and ethical
- on project scope, development, field testing, deployment,
and use. Consequently, the deployment of TIA,
as we currently understand it, would create new risks
while having an unknown effect on overall security.
There are important steps that the government can take now
to increase our security without creating a massive
surveillance program that has the potential of doing
more harm than good. Federal, state and local
governments already have information systems in place
that could play major roles with highly focused "terrorist
spotting". However, many of these information
systems are only partly functional and/or being ineffectively
used. An example is the computer system run
by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
which, according to the New York Times, was unable
to link bullets fired in three sniper shootings in
Maryland and Georgia in September, 2002. Serious improvements in the use of current
operational systems could significantly enhance homeland
security without creating the major new risks noted
in this letter. We would be very pleased to
assist policymakers in those efforts, especially as
they relate to reducing the risk of attacks on our
information infrastructure.
Please contact the ACM Office of Public Policy Office at (202)
478-6312 if we can be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Barbara Simons, Ph.D.
Eugene H. Spafford, Ph.D
Co-Chairs
U.S. ACM Public Policy Committee
Association for Computing Machinery
About USACM:
USACM is the U.S. Public
Policy Committee of the Association for Computing
Machinery (ACM). ACM is the leading nonprofit membership
organization of computer scientists and information
technology professionals dedicated to advancing the
art, science, engineering and application of information
technology. Since 1947, ACM has been a pioneering
force in fostering the open interchange of information
and promoting both technical and ethical excellence
in computing. Over 70,000 computer scientists and
information technology professionals from around the
world are members of ACM.
|