In the New York Times, Adam Clymer writes about what is supposedly continuing fights between using private information to fight terrorism and concerns about privacy. But what I see unmentioned in the press is whether the attempts to use data to find those who would attack this country will actually work. This supposes quite a bit. Will library records help? Are terrorists really going to check out books on how to build a nuclear bomb or fly a 747? Even if they buy the books, will it be with credit cards or cash, which is untraceable? Certainly personal information can help predict behavior; large retailers trying to prevent credit card fraud have used statistical modeling of an advanced form to find patterns in activity. But that is the problem - it is data accumulated from many people who repeatedly attempt to defraud using a handful of techniques each.
After 9/11, I interviewed many security experts. Every one told me that all the activities that were put into place were for show, and would do little to nothing to really improve security: there were simply too many open spots for someone determined to cause problems. The biggest issue is that the terrorists here are unlikely to use the same techniques a second time. And even if they did, look at Israel, which has continuing problems with suicide bombers, and is probably the most security-conscious country in the world, and one of the most successful.
So, all the data efforts to protect national security may come to nothing at an enormous cost. Should the country consider additional methods for protecting the public? Certainly. But, as we so often hear about other types of spending - social and environmental programs, for example - this should be predicated on real analysis. Spending enormous amounts of money without any insight into whether it will provide a useful result is foolish, and makes those same resources unavailable for any other, more effective use.
2:19:19 PM 
|
|
