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

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Fraud!!! (kw)

Don't pre-tweet your verdict (kw)

You can do very well as the owner of a very bad baseball team.  Monopolies work! [DAH]

WSJ animated graphic on Google's quest to know everything (DJS)

Nine amazing bookstores (DJS)

Market-oriented scholar concludes "Wall Street was (and remains) a giant government-sanctioned Ponzi scheme." (fp)

A heartwarming story of financial innovation. (fp)

A real jobs plan. (fp)

Deep thoughts from Paul Ryan. (fp)

First they came for the birthday card . . . (fp)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Rusty on The Value of Law School "Eliteness"

    • Nancy on Cartoon Contracts: Episode I

    • William Baude on Unfaithful Interpretation and The Gold Clause Cases

    • dave hoffman on Sending Out an e-SOS

    • Matt Bodie on Sending Out an e-SOS

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Catholic Perspectives on the Downtown NYC Muslim Community Center Controversy

    • Steven M. Bellovin on Catholic Perspectives on the Downtown NYC Muslim Community Center Controversy

    • Patrick S. O'Donnell on Childress's Quid Pro Books

    • Alice Thomas on On the Stem Cell Injunction

    • anon on Cartoon Contracts: Episode I

    • James Grimmelmann on Cartoon Contracts: Episode I

    • TJ on Unfaithful Interpretation and The Gold Clause Cases

    • Gerard N. Magliocca on Unfaithful Interpretation and The Gold Clause Cases

    • TJ on Unfaithful Interpretation and The Gold Clause Cases

    • Gerard N. Magliocca on Unfaithful Interpretation and The Gold Clause Cases
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

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

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Nate Oman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Brandon Bartels
Glenn Cohen
Meredith Harbach
Jeff Jonas
Michael Kang




Need A Solicitor?
Find the right solicitor to advise you on all your litigation law, employment law, divorce law and family law related matters. Use the award winning legal search and matching service from TakeLegalAdvice.com









Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
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
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Marc Poirier
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

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

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
Derechoalderecho
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
Just Books
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