Thread: IG: Criminal Aliens Who Gave False Information to CBP Not Flagged in IDENT Database

By Melanie Hunter
September 11, 2012
CNS News

(CNSNews.com) – Criminal aliens who supplied different biographic information to Customs and Border Patrol officers in an attempt to enter the United States were not flagged in the biometrics identification system that Homeland Security uses to screen foreign nationals entering the U.S., Homeland Security Department Acting Inspector General Charles Edwards said Tuesday.

United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology Office (US-VISIT) “is designed to collect and analyze foreign nationals’ biographic and biometric data and provide timely accurate information to border enforcement officials to prevent entries of potentially fraudulent and dangerous individuals,” Edwards told the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security.

IDENT, also known as the Automated Biometrics Identification System, which is maintained by US-VISIT, “contains hundreds of thousands of discrepant records,” Edwards said.

DHS “found hundreds of thousands of instances where the same fingerprint was recorded in US-VISIT’s database with sometimes as many as 14 different names and dates of birth. The vast majority of this faulty data is attributable to data entry errors in the name and date fields,” he said.

Edwards noted “a number of instances where individuals with derogatory information such as criminal aliens supplied different biographic information to CBP officers in an attempt to enter the United States.”

“These individuals were not flagged in the IDENT database,” he said.

He listed several examples of potential fraud: “A male who used two different names and dates of birth to attempt to enter the United States in 2008 and 2011 was identified as a repeated criminal (recidivist) alien,” Edwards said in prepared remarks.

Another example was “a female who was identified as a recidivist alien in 2008 used different biographic data to attempt to enter the United States, once in 2009 and twice in 2011,” he noted.

And also, “A female who was identified as a recidivist alien in 2006 attempted to enter the country on three visits in 2009, 2010, and 2011 under variations of the same name,” Edwards added.

“US-VISIT officials were unable to quantify how many of those inconsistencies came from individuals purposefully presenting fraudulent information at the border,” Edwards said.

IG: Criminal Aliens Who Gave False Information to CBP Not Flagged in IDENT Database | cnsnews.com

RELATED ..

NGI (Next Generation Identification): The FBI's $1 Billion Boondoggle


Headlines
Shane | September 11 2012 2:40 EDT


ForexTV.com (New York) by Shane Meyer


The FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) Program

News that the FBI is in the midst of a several part launch of its Next Generation Identification (NGI) program has prompted one of two responses from news outlets: either stoking sensationalist Big Brother fears, while bemoaning the “death” of privacy; or, praising the ingenuity of the system, while hailing a future wherein criminals are caught with greater rapidity (see page 11). I’ve always felt a twinge of dubiety regarding Orwellian alarums if only because they direct one’s attention toward a fantasy world and away from the more pressing one. On the second point, the imperative for swift justice is routinely overstated—as my old man always said “measure twice, cut once,” a maxim the judiciary and forensic communities would do well to acknowledge.

As a campaign issue, both presidential candidates have announced support for the program, and, according to DailyTech, there has already “been earmarked $1b USD in Congressional funding” for it.

It may have been a foregone conclusion as NGI is currently has three (i.e. 3, 4 and 5) of its seven “increment” installments in progress with the first three (0, 1 and 2) completed. Here’s a brief run down (and a fuller one):

Increment 0 (completed in Feb. 2011): required the installment of “Advanced Technology Workstations (ATWs). That simply entailed an update of “obsolete hardware”—essentially, hi-res computer screens for agents.

Increment 1 (completed Feb. 2011): provided more accurate fingerprint searches, the agency claims this measure increased its fingerprint match rate to 99.6%

Increment 2 (completed Aug. 2011): created the Repository for Individuals of Special Concern (RISC), a mobile fingerpring identification tool—presumably to be used by federal, state and local law officials—which identifies the following categories “wanted persons, sexual offender registry subjects, know or appropriately suspected terrorists and other persons of special interest.” The final category is undefined.

Increment 3 (Spring 2013): establishes the National Palm Print System, which incorporates latent—or, severely compromised prints—into the database. It also establishes a national palm print database of which 1.4 million have already been collected.

Increment 4 (Summer 2014): introduces the Rap Back (which notifies agencies of criminal activity reported to the IAFIS, Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System, “on individuals holding positions of trust”), facial imaging, SMT (scars, marks, tattoo) databases.

Increment 5 (late Summer/Fall 2013): iris recognition capability.

Increment 6 (2014): technology refreshment of the NGI system.

Constitutional Barriers to the Collection of Biometric Data

Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, testifying before a Senate Committee on the Judiciary/Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology and the Law (Jul. 18, 2012) attempted to answer the question: “What Facial Recognition Technology Means for Privacy and Civil Liberties.”

A major concern, especially regarding the collection of biometric data, is that it is done without the consent of Americans; indeed, such individuals might readily ask why their information is kept on file; at the same time, there is little that can be done to prevent its collection.

“[…] the photos that may end up in a database include not just a person’s face but also how she is dressed and possibly whom she is with. This creates threats to free association and free expression not evident in other biometrics.”

According to Lynch, IAFIS and the Department of Homeland Security’s Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). holds over 100 million records (IAFIS holds 71 million in the criminal file and 33 million in the civil file).

Furthermore, the FBI has stated plans to collect data from internet sources such as Facebook, increasing its database of civilian profiles.

“Data sharing can also mean that data collected for non-criminal purposes, such as immigration-related records or employment verification, are combined with and used for criminal or national-security purposes with little or no standards, oversight, or transparency. When some of this data comes from sources such as local fusion centers and private security guards in the form of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), it can perpetuate racially or politically motivated targeting.”

The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures presents a baseline protection for governmental biometrics collection in the United States, adds Lynch; however, a paper by Laura K. Donohue indicates that recourse to the Fourth Amendment vis-à-vis remote biometric identification raises as many problems as it answers.

Is the Advance of Technology a Bulwark against Administrative Malfeasance?

Perhaps a more troubling development is the FBI’s self-assurance that advances in technology are guarantors against the misapplication of technology by the staff of the FBI’s lab. Paul C. Giannelli, in 2003 journal article (“Crime Labs Need Improvement”), notes several misdeeds caught by the agency’s own Inspector General in the infamous 1997 investigation: “scientifically flawed testimony, inaccurate testimony, testimony beyond the competence of examiners, improper preparation of laboratory reports, insufficient documentation of test results, scientifically flawed reports, inadequate record management and retention, and failures of management to resolve serious and credible allegations of incompetence.”

Not one of these issues can be solved through the development and expansion of surveillance. In fact, the opposite would seem to be the case: that the FBI, in its mania for the latest biometric scanning and storing technology, has concocted a recipe which will exacerbate the problem of managerial malfeasance and lab tech incompetence.

Alarmingly, the FBI has been secretive on the algorithmic methods it has used to develop its technology, indicating little more than a lack of respect for the principles of openness, peer review and debate generally considered integral to the process of the scientific method.

The final step in the puzzle is the wild leap from FBI endorsement of advanced biometric evidence to judicial acceptance out of hand as admissible evidence. That may be the most troubling development: that the unaccountable FBI lab, and its zealot technicians, eager to make good on the taxpayers $1 billion gift, convince the public that its unverified equipment is inscrutable. Where’s that noisy crowd of anti-government spending, of fiscal conservatism when you need them?

Forex research by ForexTV.com

NGI (Next Generation Identification): The FBI's $1 Billion Boondoggle - September 11 12 2:40 EDT - ForexTV.com

The underlying fear for Americans here is that these systems will be turned against them (U.S. Citizens having not violate any crime) in the event of a police state.

That being said, IDENT does play a major role in Secure Communities, which is a very effective program designed to catch violent illegal aliens.

If our government was upholding their oath to the Constitution to protect American Citizens against both foreign and domestic enemies, there would be no storm of doubt and distrust over this program, since it would be PROTECTING our Constitutional rights, freedoms, and liberties.

The government has created a monster.