February 04, 2005 | For Your Weekend Screening Pleasure

A few things I meant to blog this week but was unable to get to:

Department of Homeland Security's Chief Privacy Officer Nuala O'Connor Kelly released the first annual privacy report to Congress. It's an accounting both of the year in privacy for homeland security, as well as an explanation of her role and actions.

There's some good stuff in here for those who love such things, including a speech she gave to some non-American privacy officials describing America's patchwork of privacy laws. There's also a promise of a couple reports on the horizon, including one on the Matrix information system and one about data transfers from corporations to TSA and its contractors.

The body of the report is here (.pdf) and the appendix can be found here (.pdf).

Dibya Sarkar of Federal Computer Week covered the report here.

The office also released its newsletter called Privacy Matters (.pdf) It's a cute little number and I like the pictures and the history of folks I have only talked to over the phone.

But the best part is the biography of Lisa Dean, the Transportation Security Administration's privacy officer. Dean used to work on privacy for the conservative Free Congress Foundation and then worked for a time as for the liberal/libertarian Electronic Frontier Foundation. It was a pretty surprising pick (my story about it here.)

Just weeks ago, Dean organized a coalition of privacy groups to ask Congress to hold hearings on the TSA's proposed passenger-screening system, known as CAPPS II. The system would search travelers' backgrounds before boarding by sifting through government and commercial databases.

The letter, which Dean signed, said the "TSA's most recent public explanation of CAPPS II ... showed that there has been a significant expansion in the scope of the program and confirmed our fear that CAPPS II would be used for purposes other than aviation security."

Now, Dean's job will be to make sure the program's privacy protections are strong enough that Congress would not step in.

Here's how Privacy Matters described her background:

Ms. Dean joined the federal government following employment in the private sector where she gained experience in privacy protection and access issues, and she organized a coalition to advocate for stronger federal and state privacy protections for personal information.

Sounds like the short bios that people give when they go on talk shows and aren't allowed to say they work for Ben and Jerry's so instead have to say I work for a independent, socially conscious ice cream company based in Vermont.

The major dailies had a couple good things this week too.

Start with this behind-the-scenes look at bureaucratic bickering, written by Washington Post reporter John Mintz.

For a insider's take on why Chertoff should not be nominated, see this Los Angeles Times editorial by FBI whistleblower Jesselyn Radack.

In Wednesday's hearings, Chertoff was asked by Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) about the retaliation against me. Chertoff responded, "Senator, first, I had no part in any way, shape or form in any retaliation against this individual for any reason, let alone giving advice."

I don't believe him now, just as I didn't in 2003 when he told Congress that my office and I had not been "asked for advice" about Lindh's interrogation. When Chertoff was later confronted with e-mails that contradicted him, he acknowledged our involvement but said he didn't consider my advice "official."

Chertoff and the Justice Department mishandled Lindh's interrogation, then tried to cover it up and went after me for doing my job. Chertoff should not be confirmed as director of Homeland Security.

Michael Janofsky of the The New York Times covered the Senate hearing about the FBI's technology boondoggle -- a failed $170 million dollar virtual case file system.

Mr. Mueller's concession came on the same day the inspector general of the Justice Department issued a 95-page report chronicling the failure of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to complete the third phase of technological upgrades, a $581 million project known as Trilogy that began in late 2000. The project took on urgency after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, when it became clear that agents who still relied heavily on pens and paper could not easily send and share vital information.

And finally for a little bit of dark humor, there's this Washington Post story by David Snyder about political infighting in Maryland over seven armored vehicles bought with more than a million dollars in homeland security grants.

In an event billed as a triumph for homeland security and government cooperation in Maryland, a phalanx of armored police vehicles paraded around the State House yesterday, taking several local leaders for a spin.

But something was missing from the brief martial display-cum-news conference. In fact, two things were missing: Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D) and Howard County Executive James N. Robey (D).

The two boycotted the gathering, saying Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) was attempting to claim credit where none was due.

They all should have boycotted the waste of a million dollars to buy the equivalent of Bradley Fighting Vehicles for Maryland. Unless Homeland Security has some intel they aren't sharing with anyone, I don't think I have heard of a single threat scenario that would justify buying 7 armored vehicles for the state of Maryland. Don't these guys have a national guard, in case Al Qaida actually invades?

Posted by Ryan Singel at February 4, 2005 06:17 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.secondaryscreening.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/112