LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  March 2006

SOCNET March 2006

Subject:

Can Network Theory Thwart Terrorists?

From:

Cliff Moser <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Cliff Moser <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 12 Mar 2006 20:26:01 -0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (174 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Dunno if anyone's posted this yet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/magazine/312wwln_essay.html?_r=1&oref=
slogin


 
From today's NYTimes Magazine....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

March 12, 2006
Idea Lab
 
By PATRICK RADDEN KEEFE


Recent debates about the National Security Agency's
warrantless-eavesdropping program have produced two very different
pictures of the operation. Whereas administration officials describe a
carefully aimed "terrorist surveillance program," press reports depict a
pervasive electronic net ensnaring thousands of innocent people and few
actual terrorists. Could it be that both the administration and its
critics are right? One way to reconcile these divergent accounts - and
explain the administration's decision not to seek warrants for the
surveillance - is to examine a new conceptual paradigm that is changing
how America's spies pursue terrorists: network theory.

During the last decade, mathematicians, physicists and sociologists have
advanced the scientific study of networks, identifying surprising
commonalities among the ways airlines route their flights, people
interact at cocktail parties and crickets synchronize their chirps. In
the increasingly popular language of network theory, individuals are
"nodes," and relationships and interactions form the "links" binding
them together; by mapping those connections, network scientists try to
expose patterns that might not otherwise be apparent. Researchers are
applying newly devised algorithms to vast databases - one academic team
recently examined the e-mail traffic of 43,000 people at a large
university and mapped their social ties. Given the difficulty of
identifying elusive terror cells, it was only a matter of time before
this new science was discovered by America's spies.

In its simplest form, network theory is about connecting the dots.
Stanley Milgram's finding that any two Americans are connected by a mere
six intermediaries - or "degrees of separation" - is one of the
animating ideas behind the science of networks; the Notre Dame physicist
Albert-Laszlo Barabasi studied one obvious network - the Internet - and
found that any two unrelated Web pages are separated by only 19 links.
After Sept. 11, Valdis Krebs, a Cleveland consultant who produces social
network "maps" for corporate and nonprofit clients, decided to map the
hijackers. He started with two of the plotters, Khalid al-Midhar and
Nawaf Alhazmi, and, using press accounts, produced a chart of the
interconnections - shared addresses, telephone numbers, even
frequent-flier numbers - within the group. All of the 19 hijackers were
tied to one another by just a few links, and a disproportionate number
of links converged on the leader, Mohamed Atta. Shortly after posting
his map online, Krebs was invited to Washington to brief intelligence
contractors.

Announced in 2002, Adm. John Poindexter's controversial Total
Information Awareness program was an early effort to mine large volumes
of data for hidden connections. But even before 9/11, an Army project
called Able Danger sought to map Al Qaeda by "identifying linkages and
patterns in large volumes of data," and may have succeeded in
identifying Atta as a suspect. As if to underline the project's
social-network principles, Able Danger analysts called it "the Kevin
Bacon game."

Given that the N.S.A. intercepts some 650 million communications
worldwide every day, it's not surprising that its analysts focus on a
question well suited to network theory: whom should we listen to in the
first place? Russell Tice, a former N.S.A. employee who worked on highly
classified Special Access Programs, says that analysts start with a
suspect and "spider-web" outward, looking at everyone he contacts, and
everyone those people contact, until the list includes thousands of
names. Officials familiar with the program have said that before
individuals are actually wiretapped, computers sort through flows of
metadata - information about who is contacting whom by phone or e-mail.
An unclassified National Science Foundation report says that one tool
analysts use to sort through all that data is link analysis. 

The use of such network-based analysis may explain the administration's
decision, shortly after 9/11, to circumvent the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court. The court grants warrants on a case-by-case basis,
authorizing comprehensive surveillance of specific individuals. The
N.S.A. program, which enjoys backdoor access to America's major
communications switches, appears to do just the opposite: the
surveillance is typically much less intrusive than what a FISA warrant
would permit, but it involves vast numbers of people.

In some ways, this is much less alarming than old-fashioned wiretapping.
A computer that monitors the metadata of your phone calls and e-mail to
see if you talk to terrorists will learn less about you than a
government agent listening in to the words you speak. The problem is
that most of us are connected by two degrees of separation to thousands
of people, and by three degrees to hundreds of thousands. This explains
reports that the overwhelming number of leads generated by the N.S.A.
program have been false positives - innocent civilians implicated in an
ever-expanding associational web.

This has troubling implications for civil liberties. But it also points
to a practical obstacle for using link analysis to discover terror
networks: information overload. The National Counterterrorism Center's
database of suspected terrorists contains 325,000 names; the
Congressional Research Service recently found that the N.S.A. is at risk
of being drowned in information. Able Danger analysts produced link
charts identifying suspected Qaeda figures, but some charts were 20 feet
long and covered in small print. If Atta's name was on one of those
network maps, it could just as easily illustrate their ineffectiveness
as it could their value, because nobody pursued him at the time.

One way to make sense of these volumes of information is to look for
network hubs. When Barabasi mapped the Internet, he found that sites
like Google and Yahoo operate as hubs - much like an airline hub at
Newark or O'Hare - maintaining exponentially more links than the
average. The question is how to identify the hubs in an endless flow of
records and intercepted communications. Scientists are using algorithms
that can determine the "role structure" within a network: what are the
logistical and hierarchical relationships, who are the hubs? The process
involves more than just tallying links. If you examined the metadata for
all e-mail traffic at a university, for instance, you might find an
individual who e-mailed almost everyone else every day. But rather than
being an especially connected or charismatic leader, this individual
could turn out to be an administrator in charge of distributing
announcements. Another important concept in network theory is the
"strength of weak ties": the most valuable information may be exchanged
by actors from otherwise unrelated social networks.

Network academics caution that the field is still in its infancy and
should not be regarded as a panacea. Duncan Watts of Columbia University
points out that it's much easier to trace a network when you can already
identify some of its members. But much social-network research involves
simply trawling large databases for telltale behaviors or activities
that might be typical of a terrorist. In this case the links among
people are not based on actual relationships at all, but on an
"affiliation network," in which individuals are connected by virtue of
taking part in a similar activity. This sort of approach has been
effective for corporations in detecting fraud. A credit-card company
knows that when someone uses a card to purchase $2 of gas at a gas
station, and then 20 minutes later makes an expensive purchase at an
electronics store, there's a high probability that the card has been
stolen. Marc Sageman, a former C.I.A. case officer who wrote a book on
terror networks, notes that correlating certain signature behaviors
could be one way of tracking terrorists: jihadist groups in Virginia and
Australia exercised at paint-ball courses, so analysts could look for
Muslim militants who play paint ball, he suggests. But whereas there is
a long history of signature behaviors that indicate fraud, jihadist
terror networks are a relatively new phenomena and offer fewer reliable
patterns.

There is also some doubt that identifying hubs will do much good.
Networks are by their very nature robust and resistant to attack. After
all, while numerous high ranking Qaeda leaders have been captured or
killed in the years since Sept. 11, the network still appears to be
functioning. "If you shoot the C.E.O., they'll hire another one," Duncan
Watts says. "The job will still get done." 

Patrick Radden Keefe, a Century Foundation fellow, is the author of
"Chatter: Dispatches from the Secret World of Global Eavesdropping."



Copyright 2006The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search
Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top 
    

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager