Saturday, March 16, 2013

The Law, the Military, and Big Data


America has a long history of separating military operations from civilian law enforcement and domestic governmental functions.[1] The information technology revolution has created new realities that will challenge this old order of things.  As knowledge grows, it will greatly improve decision making for the military, law enforcement, the domestic sector of the government, as well as the business community.  With these opportunities, come threats to privacy from the compilation of information, as well as the threat from malicious digitized information itself.[2]  This post focuses on the implications of the military holding all of this information.

Organizational silos have separated military, domestic intelligence, law enforcement, and other parts of the government form each other for over two centuries.  The processing of online information and the need to protect our IT systems is slowly starting to merge across these parts of the government.[3]

Historically the military worked overseas.  The military's potential role in domestic cyber protection was discussed in a previous post on this blog, but this post concerns data collection.  Essentially, what do the American people want the military to know?  The Defense Department has vast resources of computing machines and highly educated personnel to collect all kinds of information.  International crime syndicates, money transfers, immigrant population flows, and of course cyber investigations are all subjects about which the military could collect domestic data in the conduct of its duties.

What other parts of the government and the business community do with that information from the military is yet another set of issues.  The military might have data sets about children's academic performance at on-base schools that the federal and local education authorities might like.  Many medical and scientific innovations come from the battlefield.  In addition, the research and data that the military, and all other parts of the government collect are invaluable to the business community.  These are policies that should be allowed, but then that raises the issue discussed below of whether the aggregation of too much information sets up a power imbalance between the government and citizenry.[4]

As the word privacy is not written in the constitution, it is usually associated with the First and Fourth Amendments.  The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the military can collect information on civilian matters without a presumption of violating First Amendment rights such as the right to associate.[5]  The law needs to be modernized to control how the information is protected and with whom it is shared.

The other big issue is Fourth Amendment issues in law enforcement.  We want criminals arrested, and better yet, deterred from the start. The Posse Comitatus Act generally bans the military from civilian law enforcement.[6]  The normal judicial test is 1) military troops may not pervade law enforcement organizations, 2) the military cannot be used to catch criminals, and 3) civilians cannot be subject to the military's regulations.[7]  While there is no rule to exclude evidence from military investigators in federal civilian court,[8] three states ban it and it is a rare occurrence.[9] The exception is when military investigators discover fraud with defense contractors or espionage on a base, since there is a nexus between the military and the criminal code on those subject matters.

In the world of Big Data, the military might be able to amass volumes of domestic information legitimately and the hand over evidence of crimes with such regularity that civilian law enforcement becomes dependent on it.  That is where the law comes in.  To stop the temptation to use analyzed data, albeit for public good, when it violates the expected privacy of the American people.




[1] Laird v. Tatum 408 U.S. 1, 15 (1972)
[2] http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/280243-overnight-tech-hagel-stresses-importance-of-cybersecurity-ahead-of-confirmation-hearing
[3] http://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2013/02/defense-positions-military-cyber-squad-dhs-turf/61057/
[4] http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2006/05/70886
[5] Laird v. Tatum 408 U.S. 1 (1972)
[6] 18 U.S.C. § 1385
[7] Congressional Research Service, The Posse Comitatus Act and Related Matters: The use of the Military to Execute Civilian law August 16, 2012 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf

[8] U.S. v Walden 490 F 2d. 372, 376 (1974)
[9] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42659.pdf

No comments:

Post a Comment