Trouble with the Terrorist Watch List Database Case Study

1. What concepts in this chapter are illustrated in this case?

Many of the advantages (and shortcomings) of database management systems (DBMS) are illustrated by the terrorist watch list case study. For instance, the watch list solves some of the problems of traditional file environment by reducing redundancy (each agency with some responsibility for homeland security maintaining its own separate list). Also, ideally the list should minimize data inconsistency. DBMS includes tools for accessing and manipulating the information in the database (test, p. 245). This should be helpful on a terrorist watch list in which changes, deletions and retrieval of data may be required by multiple users.

2. Why was the consolidated terrorist watch list crated? What are the benefits of the list?

The list was created in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, when critics of US intelligence suggested that the lack of shared information among intelligence agencies was partially responsible for our vulnerability to attack. Specifically, the list was created “to organize and standardize information about suspected terrorists…into a single list to enhance communication between agencies.” Prior to creation of the list, these agencies “lacked a consistent process to share relevant information concerning the individual’s on each agency’s list.”

The benefits of the list include its daily updating, which keeps it current. Also, the same information on the list is distributed to many agencies in an effort to deter or detect the movements of known or suspected terrorists. This should aid law enforcement by insuring that all agencies receive identical data. Finally, each agency should receive subsets of the data on the master watch list which are relevant to their particular mission. This benefits the individual agencies by not flooding them with unnecessary information which would not be helpful to them in doing their job. In short, creation of the unified watch list “has been a positive step toward streamlining the process of locating and apprehending terrorists.” (p. 270).

3. Describe some of the weaknesses of the watch list. What management, organization and technology factors are responsible for these weaknesses?

According to the GAO, the list contains inaccuracies and policies for nomination and removal from the list are not uniform across agencies. This is important because the size of the list is growing exponentially (soon to hit a million names), and if some agencies do not keep current with their removal of names, the list will continue to contain names of individuals who should be of no interest to government intelligence. It is necessary to keep confidential the criteria for inclusion on the list, or real terrorists would be able to evade legitimate law enforcement inquiries. Yet that very confidentiality also leaves the list and the agencies open to criticism that the criteria for inclusion on the list are too minimal, thereby sweeping up people who are wholly innocent of any terrorist connections. Similarly, because the list is based on names, it may well be seen as an example of racial profiling, and the many “false positives” (including a US senator and a six year old boy) are widely known and reported. This leads to skepticism about the credibility of the entire list.
Management issues call attention to the quality and accuracy of the data in the list. A 2005 report found “inconsistent record counts, duplicate records, and records that lacked data fields or had unclear sources for their data.
Organizational issues include the traditional “turf wars” between agencies. Despite the integration and consolidation intended in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Washington culture of struggles for power among agencies has not been eliminated, and in this case, “knowledge is power.” Sharing of information has happened “in an informal way and sometimes not at all.” (p. 271). Other organizational issues arise when private sector databases (those maintained by the airlines) must be accessed by public sector officials. Finally, organizational issues have arisen because not all organizations were equally scrupulous about screening names nominated for inclusion on the list.

Technology issues have arisen because of the sometimes cumbersome procedures for removal of a name from the list. The requests for removal have continued to outpace the actual removals.

4. If you were responsible for the management of the TSC watch list database, what steps would you take to correct some of these weaknesses?
One of the first steps which must be taken is the tightening up and speeding up of the processes required to remove an “innocent” person from the list. The failure to do so leaves the entire list’s usefulness and public reputation at risk. Second, each agency must be held accountable for the accuracy of information supplied to the list. Finally, greater care must be taken in the design of selection criteria for inclusion on the list.

5. Do you believe that the watch list represents a significant threat to individuals’ privacy or Constitutional rights? Why or why not?

The answer to this question depends entirely on your view of the importance of privacy in our current society. Some people believe that in the wake of 9-11, individual privacies must be sacrificed in order to protect the country as a whole. I am not one of those people. To me individual privacy rights are critically important (one of the reasons we live in Maine). I would not say that the existence of the list represents a threat to personal liberty, but I believe that the substandard management of the list does represent such a threat. Surely there is a way to maintain information about true terrorist threats, without including someone with tangential or coincidental relationships with terrorist forces.