U.S. Rates Travelers for
Terror Risk
By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN
Associated Press Writer
12/01/06 -- - WASHINGTON (AP)
- Without their knowledge,
millions of Americans and foreigners crossing U.S.
borders in the past four years have been assigned scores
generated by U.S. government computers rating the risk
that the travelers are terrorists or criminals.
The travelers are not allowed to see or directly
challenge these risk assessments, which the government
intends to keep on file for 40 years.
The government calls the system critical to national
security following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks. Some privacy advocates call it one of the most
intrusive and risky schemes yet mounted in the name of
anti-terrorism efforts.
Virtually every person entering and leaving the United
States by air, sea or land is scored by the Homeland
Security Department's Automated Targeting System, or ATS.
The scores are based on ATS' analysis of their travel
records and other data, including items such as where
they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor
vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference
and what kind of meal they ordered.
The use of the program on travelers was quietly
disclosed earlier this month when the department put a
notice detailing ATS in the Federal Register, a
fine-print compendium of federal rules. The few civil
liberties lawyers who had heard of ATS and even some law
enforcement officers said they had thought it was only
used to screen cargo.
The Homeland Security Department called the program
``one of the most advanced targeting systems in the
world'' and said the nation's ability to spot criminals
and other security threats ``would be critically
impaired without access to this data.''
But to David Sobel, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, a group devoted to civil liberties in
cyberspace: ``It's probably the most invasive system the
government has yet deployed in terms of the number of
people affected.''
Government officials could not say whether ATS has
apprehended any terrorists. Based on all the information
available to them, federal agents turn back about 45
foreign criminals a day at U.S. borders, according to
Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection
spokesman Bill Anthony. He could not say how many were
spotted by ATS.
``Homeland Security ought to focus on the simple things
it can do and stop trying to build these overly complex
jury-rigged systems,'' said Barry Steinhardt, an
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, citing problems
the agency has had developing a computerized screening
system for domestic air travelers.
That data-mining project - now known as Secure Flight -
caused a furor two years ago in Congress. Lawmakers
barred its implementation until it can pass 10 tests for
accuracy and privacy protection.
In comments to the government about ATS, Sobel said,
``Some individuals will be denied the right to travel
and many the right to travel free of unwarranted
interference.''
Sobel said in the interview that the government notice
also raises the possibility that faulty risk assessments
could cost innocent people jobs in shipping or travel,
government contracts, licenses or other benefits.
The government notice says some or all of the ATS data
about an individual may be shared with state, local and
foreign governments for use in hiring decisions and in
granting licenses, security clearances, contracts or
other benefits. In some cases, the data may be shared
with courts, Congress and even private contractors.
``Everybody else can see it, but you can't,'' Stephen
Yale-Loehr, an immigration lawyer who teaches at Cornell
Law school, said in an interview.
But Jayson P. Ahern, an assistant commissioner of
Customs and Border Protection, said the ATS ratings
simply allow agents at the border to pick out people not
previously identified by law enforcement as potential
terrorists or criminals and send them for additional
searches and interviews.
``It does not replace the judgments of officers'' in
reaching a final decision about a traveler, Ahern said
in an interview Thursday.
This targeting system goes beyond traditional watch
lists, Ahern said. Border agents compare arrival names
with watch lists separately from the ATS analysis.
In a privacy impact assessment posted on its Web site
this week, Homeland Security said ATS is aimed at
discovering high-risk individuals who ``may not have
been previously associated with a law enforcement action
or otherwise be noted as a person of concern to law
enforcement.''
Ahern said ATS does this by applying rules derived from
the government's knowledge of terrorists and criminals
to the passenger's travel records.
Ahern declined to disclose any of the rules, but a
Homeland Security document on data-mining gave this
innocuous example of a risk assessment rule: ``If an
individual sponsors more than one fiancee for
immigration at the same time, there is likelihood of
immigration fraud.''
Ahern said ATS was first used to rate the risk posed by
travelers in the late 1990s, using personal information
about them voluntarily supplied by air and cruise lines.
A post-9/11 law vastly expanded the program, he said. It
required airline and cruise companies to begin in 2002
sending the government electronic data in advance on all
passengers and crew bound into or out of the country.
All these names are put through ATS analysis, Ahern
said. In addition, at land border crossings, agents
enter license plates and the names of vehicle drivers
and passengers, and Amtrak voluntarily supplies
passenger data on its trains to and from Canada, he
said.
In the Federal Register, the department exempted ATS
from many provisions of the Privacy Act designed to
protect people from secret, possibly inaccurate
government dossiers. As a result, it said travelers
cannot learn whether the system has assessed them. Nor
can they see the records ``for the purpose of contesting
the content.''
Toby Levin, senior adviser in Homeland Security's
Privacy Office, noted that the department pledged to
review the exemptions over the next 90 days based on the
public comment received. As of Thursday, all 15 public
comments received opposed the system outright or
criticized its redress procedures.
The Homeland Security privacy impact statement added
that ``an individual might not be aware of the reason
additional scrutiny is taking place, nor should he or
she'' because that might compromise the ATS' methods.
Nevertheless, Ahern said any traveler who objected to
additional searches or interviews could ask to speak to
a supervisor to complain. Homeland Security's privacy
impact statement said that if asked, border agents would
hand complaining passengers a one-page document that
describes some, but not all, of the records that agents
check and refers complaints to Custom and Border
Protection's Customer Satisfaction Unit.
Homeland Security's statement said travelers can use
this office to obtain corrections to the underlying data
sources that the risk assessment is based on, but not to
the risk assessment itself. The risk assessment changes
automatically if the source data changes, the statement
explained.
``I don't buy that at all,'' said Jim Malmberg,
executive director of American Consumer Credit Education
Support Services, a private credit education group.
Malmberg said it has been hard for citizens, including
members of Congress and even infants, to stop being
misidentified as terrorists because their names match
those on anti-terrorism watch lists. He noted that while
the government plans to keep the risk assessments for 40
years, it doesn't intend to keep all the underlying data
they are based on for that long.
Homeland Security, however, is nearing an announcement
of a new effort to improve redress programs and the
public's awareness of them, according to a department
privacy official, who requested anonymity because the
formal announcement has not been made.
The department says that 87 million people a year enter
the country by air and 309 million enter by land or sea.
On the Net: - DHS privacy impact statement:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/privacy/privacy-pia-cbp-ats.pdf
Associated Press writer Leslie Miller contributed to
this report
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2006
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.