Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_12809_9780195367195_bnr.JPG

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • alex on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Dan Culley on Perils of a “Lightly Regulated” Insurance Market

    • Frank Pasquale on Financial Innovation?

    • Robyn A on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Bruce Boyden on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Larry Rosenthal on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Howard Wasserman on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Adam on Financial Innovation?

    • Amy on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • cjmajor on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • cj on Lori Drew Tentatively Acquitted

    • Howard Wasserman on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • Colin Miller on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

    • concerned mom on The Lori Drew Trial: Verdict

    • A Commenter on Truthseeking and Criminal Procedure in the Supreme Court’s Last Term

  •  

    Site Meter

Your Terrorist Risk Score

posted by Daniel Solove

passport1.jpgEver see those credit report advertisements, the ones for freecreditreports.com (which aren’t free by the way)? According to the guy in the ad, everybody should know their credit score. And not only do you have a credit score, but you also might have a terrorist risk score. This score, called the Automated Targeting System (ATS), measures how likely you are to be a terrorist. From the AP:

Without notifying the public, federal agents for the past four years have assigned millions of international travelers, including Americans, computer-generated scores rating the risk they pose of being 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 scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including 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 program’s existence was quietly disclosed earlier in November when the government put an announcement detailing the Automated Targeting System, or ATS, for the first time in the Federal Register, a fine-print compendium of federal rules. Privacy and civil liberties lawyers, congressional aides and even law enforcement officers said they thought this system had been applied only to cargo.

A high credit score is a good thing. It means you get approved for loans and receive low interest rates. A high ATS score means you get singled out for an extra-friendly encounter with airline screeners. Unlike your credit score, which you can find out, you’ll never know your ATS score. And that’s part of the problem. The system applies to American citizens, yet there doesn’t seem to be much of a process for oversight. Nor does there seem to be much of a way for allowing people to challenge erroneous scores. According to the article:

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. “There is no procedure to correct the risk assessment and associated rules stored in ATS as the assessment … will change when the data from the source system(s) is amended.”

But what if the risk assessment is wrong and you’re not a criminal or terrorist? So long as the data is right, it’s up to the computer to decide what you are. Even Franz Kafka would grant more due process. So if you find yourself getting extra screeing when returning from your trip abroad or winning a free vacation to Guantanamo, your ATS score is probably a bit high.


 December 1, 2006 at 1:25 am   Posted in: Privacy (Law Enforcement), Privacy (National Security)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (3)

  1. John Armstrong - December 1, 2006 at 2:33 am

    a one-page document that describes some, but not all, of the records that agents check

    Who wants to bet the undisclosed records include charitable donations? That check to the ACLU or the EFF means aid and comfort, my friend. Next up, party affiliation, browser cache…

    You see, these may be the fevered dreams of a modren paranoiac, or they may not. It doesn’t matter, because they don’t have to tell you what they’re looking at.

    Like Homer sez, “that’s not even Mexico”.

  2. Matt - December 1, 2006 at 10:24 am

    “…and what kind of meal they ordered.” Well, at least we don’t have to worry about this on domestic flights anymore. But it does make me wonder, are terrorists more likely to get the chicken or the beef? (We all know that the vegitarian meal is objectively pro-terrorist, but surely even the terrorists know that by now and so avoid it, too.)

  3. Adam - December 1, 2006 at 11:27 am

    I blogged last night about the difficulties a friend had in even commenting on the system. After reading about it on CNN, he spent 30 minutes trying to find how to submit comments. It seems the wrong docket number somehow made it into the Federal Register.

    “Dear TSA, How Do We Contact Thee?“

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Robert Hillman
Kevin Johnson
Sarah Lawsky
Robert Percival
Jenia Turner






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress