Mining Student Data Could Save Lives

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Mining Student Data Could Save Lives

Postby brekin » Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:10 am

O.K. this guy is a cop in the university system and no surprise he would
want this, but it is incredible that this appeared in the Chronicle for Higher Education.
Maybe they are just being provocative. I don't know...some of the comments
after the story are enlightening.


Mining Student Data Could Save Lives
http://chronicle.com/article/Mining-Stu ... ve/129231/


By Michael Morris

He hadn't taken his medication in weeks—didn't need it. His clarity and focus over the past couple of months were sharper than they had ever been. As he stood in the hallway preparing to enter the campus library through a side door, his sweating hands firmly clutched the grips of the twin Glock 22 pistols he had ordered online.

If only there had been a way to look into a crystal ball and see that this horrific confrontation was about to occur, it could have been prevented. In the aftermath of nearly every large-scale act of campus violence in the United States, investigation has revealed that early-warning signs had been present but not recognized or acted upon. As a response, nearly all college and university campuses have developed threat-assessment teams, whereby key members of various campus groups come together regularly to share information and discuss troubling student behavior.

Unfortunately, these teams are only able to assess students whose issues have already led to problematic behaviors noticed by people on campus. Existing technology, though, offers universities an opportunity to gaze into their own crystal balls in an effort to prevent large-scale acts of violence on campus. To that end, universities must be prepared to use data mining to identify and mitigate the potential for tragedy.

Many campuses across the country and most in California provide each student with an e-mail address, personal access to the university's network, free use of campus computers, and wired and wireless Internet access for their Web-connected devices. Students use these campus resources for conducting research, communicating with others, and for other personal activities on the Internet, including social networking. University officials could potentially mine data from their students and analyze them, since the data are already under their control. The analysis could then be screened to predict behavior to identify when a student's online activities tend to indicate a threat to the campus.

If university officials were to learn that a student had conducted extensive online research about the personal life and daily activities of a particular faculty member, posted angry and threatening comments on his Facebook wall about that professor, shopped online for high-powered firearms and ammunition, and saved a draft version of a suicide note on his personal network drive, would those officials want to have a conversation with that student, even though he hadn't engaged in any significant outward behavior? Certainly.

This information, which may reside in the university's IT system, would allow the campus to strategize a swift and effective intervention, and take steps to prevent violent behavior from ever occurring. In such cases, an important distinction would have to be made between violations of the law and violations of campus policy, and established guidelines would have to be followed to ensure the student's rights to due process.

Interestingly, the technology exists to allow university officials to take such actions. Data mining involves applying specifically designed algorithms to electronic

data to identify patterns and transform the data into usable information. It is a form of behavioral surveillance, and it can be used to predict, with amazing accuracy, the propensity for a person's future behavior. Computer engineers design data-mining algorithms to search for specific patterns that, when analyzed collectively, tend to indicate the likelihood of a particular outcome.

Have you ever had a credit-card transaction declined because the bank noticed an unusual pattern of spending on your account? Through data mining, the bank drew the conclusion that your credit card had been stolen. It would logically follow that mining algorithms could be easily designed to predict the potential for planned or considered campus violence as well.

Although university administrators may resist the idea of passive behavioral surveillance of the campus community because of privacy considerations, the truth is that society has been systematically forfeiting its rights to online privacy over the past several years through the continued and increased use of services on the Internet. Social-networking sites and search engines store and divulge personal information accessible to the world each day, yet people continue to use them in increasing numbers.

Indeed, our online activities are already under constant surveillance—by companies eager to learn about our individual interests. Their findings are used for marketing purposes to single out consumers with goods and services based on our specific interests. How does Amazon.com know what types of books I'm interested in reading? How did my Gmail account find out I'm an Oakland Raiders fan? These examples are instances of data mining.

Some people might think this concept will face harsh challenges on the basis of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (Ferpa), which prohibits the release of any information from a student's education record without written permission from the student. Following the killings at Virginia Tech in April of 2007, though, universities sought clarification from the Department of Education regarding exceptions to the Ferpa regulations. That shooter had demonstrated mental instability to a number of faculty members on the campus, but information was not shared effectively because of potential Ferpa implications. To resolve this, the department revised and clarified acceptable exceptions to Ferpa requirements.

Under the new regulations, campuses may disclose information from a student's record, without consent, "to appropriate parties in connection with an emergency if knowledge of the information is necessary to protect the health and safety of the student or other individuals." Ferpa also allows for "information concerning disciplinary action taken against a student for conduct that posed a significant risk to the safety or well-being of that student, other students, or other members of the school community" to be included in the student's educational record and to be disclosed to teachers and school officials inside and outside the institution. Enhancing the capacity of threat-assessment teams through data mining is the next natural step using what would ordinarily be private information to prevent on-campus violence.


Because campuses can be prime targets for large-scale acts of violence, have their own full-service computer networks, and operate comprehensive threat-assessment teams, the use of data-mining technology to prevent violence should begin there. Certainly, no single crime-prevention program can be 100-percent effective, 100 percent of the time. But if colleges use the crystal ball that's available to them, they will surely come much closer to that goal.

Michael Morris is a lieutenant with the University Police at California State University-Channel Islands.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
User avatar
brekin
 
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Mining Student Data Could Save Lives

Postby Elvis » Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:00 pm

that dumb cop wrote:society has been systematically forfeiting its rights to online privacy over the past several years through the continued and increased use of services on the Internet


The "use it or lose it" principle---what a convenient excuse to snoop on people.

Just because my curtains are open doesn't mean you can come into my yard and peep into my windows. Creep.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mining Student Data Could Save Lives

Postby Harvey » Sat Oct 08, 2011 6:13 am

Yes, who watches the watchmen.

But also, if not watchmen? Then who?

Perhaps the time has come to be each our own watchman.

I wonder, the people who knew the killers in every one of these episodes, are they surprised? If not, that tells us something important. We abandon our shadows to chance at our own peril.

We can know the crime before it happens, very often that lack of surprise, if examined soon enough, perhaps before the event, would be enough to avert the disaster.

If we know each our own nature, we know the number of the beast.
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Mining Student Data Could Save Lives

Postby daimedreams » Sat Oct 08, 2011 11:36 pm

Homeland Security moves forward with "pre-crime" detection
By: Declan McCullagh OCTOBER 7, 2011 4:00 AM PDT
Print
E-mail

Share
69 comments
An internal U.S. Department of Homeland Security document indicates that a controversial program designed to predict whether a person will commit a crime is already being tested on some members of the public voluntarily, CNET has learned.
If this sounds a bit like the Tom Cruise movie called "Minority Report," or the CBS drama "Person of Interest," it is. But where "Minority Report" author Philip K. Dick enlisted psychics to predict crimes, DHS is betting on algorithms: it's building a "prototype screening facility" that it hopes will use factors such as ethnicity, gender, breathing, and heart rate to "detect cues indicative of mal-intent."

Excerpt from internal DHS document obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
The latest developments, which reveal efforts to "collect, process, or retain information on" members of "the public," came to light through an internal DHS document obtained under open-government laws by the Electronic Privacy Information Center. DHS calls its "pre-crime" system Future Attribute Screening Technology, or FAST.
"If it were deployed against the public, it would be very problematic," says Ginger McCall, open government counsel at EPIC, a nonprofit group in Washington, D.C.
It's unclear why the June 2010 DHS document (PDF) specified that information is currently collected or retained on members of "the public" as part of FAST, and a department representative declined to answer questions that CNET posed two days ago.
Elsewhere in the document, FAST program manager Robert Middleton Jr. refers to a "limited" initial trial using DHS employees as test subjects. Middleton says that FAST "sensors will non-intrusively collect video images, audio recordings, and psychophysiological measurements from the employees," with a subgroup of employees singled out, with their permission, for more rigorous evaluation.
Related stories:
• How 9/11 attacks reshaped U.S. privacy debate
• White House: Need to monitor online 'extremism'
• How companies use Wi-Fi to track you
Peter Boogaard, the deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, provided a statement to CNET that said:
The department's Science and Technology Directorate has conducted preliminary research in operational settings to determine the feasibility of using non-invasive physiological and behavioral sensor technology and observational techniques to detect signs of stress, which are often associated with intent to do harm. The FAST program is only in the preliminary stages of research and there are no plans for acquiring or deploying this type of technology at this time.
FAST is designed to track and monitor, among other inputs, body movements, voice pitch changes, prosody changes (alterations in the rhythm and intonation of speech), eye movements, body heat changes, and breathing patterns. Occupation and age are also considered. A government source told CNET that blink rate and pupil variation are measured too.
A field test of FAST has been conducted in at least one undisclosed location in the northeast. "It is not an aiport, but it is a large venue that is a suitable substitute for an operational setting," DHS spokesman John Verrico told Nature.com in May.
Although DHS has publicly suggested that FAST could be used at airport checkpoints--the Transportation Security Administration is part of the department, after all--the government appears to have grander ambitions. One internal DHS document (PDF) also obtained by EPIC through the Freedom of Information Act says a mobile version of FAST "could be used at security checkpoints such as border crossings or at large public events such as sporting events or conventions."

Internal DHS document says FAST "will help protect the public while maintaining efficiency and security"
(Credit: U.S. Department of Homeland Security)
It also says that the next field trial of FAST will involve members of the public who "have food service experience" and are paid "to work at a one day VIP event." Most of the document is redacted, but each person is apparently told to act normally or to do something demonstrating "mal-intent," such as being told to smuggle a recording device into the VIP event. The trick, then, is to see if FAST can detect which is which.
It's not clear whether these people were informed that they're participating in a FAST study.
McCall, the EPIC attorney who has been pressing the department to obtain these internal documents, said it's time for the DHS Privacy Office to review the current state of the FAST project. What appears to be the most recent privacy analysis (PDF) was completed in December 2008 and contemplates using "volunteer participants" who have given their "informed consent."
"They should do a privacy impact assessment," McCall said.
DHS is being unusually secretive about FAST. A February 2010 contract (PDF) with Cambridge, Mass.-based Draper Laboratory to build elements of the "pre-crime" system has every dollar figure blacked out (a fleeting reference to an "infrared camera" remained).
Relying on ambiguous biological factors to predict mal-intent is worrisome, says McCall. "Especially if they're going to be rolling this out at the airport. I don't know about you, but going to an airport gives me a minor panic attack, wondering if I'm going to get groped by a TSA officer."
Update 2:12 p.m. PT: A Homeland Security spokesman has just provided this additional statement to CNET: "The FAST program is entirely voluntary and does not store any personally-identifiable information (PII) from participants once the experiment is completed. The system is not designed to capture or store PII. Any information that is gathered is stored under an anonymous identifier and is only available to DHS as aggregated performance data. It is only used for laboratory protocol as we are doing research and development. It is gathered when people sign up as volunteers, not by the FAST system. If it were ever to be deployed, there would be no PII captured from people going through the system." (The DHS Privacy Office has said that the system does contain personally-identifiable information and that FAST "is a privacy sensitive system." DHS defines a privacy sensitive system as "any system that collects, uses, disseminates, or maintains" personally-identifiable information.)


http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20117058-281/homeland-security-moves-forward-with-pre-crime-detection
“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.”
-- Albert Einstein
User avatar
daimedreams
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Michigan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mining Student Data Could Save Lives

Postby elfismiles » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:44 pm


How the feds are tracking your kid
By EMMETT MCGROARTY & JANE ROBBINS
Last Updated: 12:13 AM, December 28, 2011
Posted: 11:01 PM, December 27, 2011


Would it bother you to know that the federal Centers for Disease Control had been shown your daughter’s health records to see how she responded to an STD/teen-pregnancy-prevention program? How about if the federal Department of Education and Department of Labor scrutinized your son’s academic performance to see if he should be “encouraged” to leave high school early to learn a trade? Would you think the government was intruding on your territory as a parent?

Under regulations the Obama Department of Education released this month, these scenarios could become reality. The department has taken a giant step toward creating a de facto national student database that will track students by their personal information from preschool through career. Although current federal law prohibits this, the department decided to ignore Congress and, in effect, rewrite the law. Student privacy and parental authority will suffer.


How did it happen? Buried within the enormous 2009 stimulus bill were provisions encouraging states to develop data systems for collecting copious information on public-school kids. To qualify for stimulus money, states had to agree to build such systems according to federally dictated standards. So all 50 states either now maintain or are capable of maintaining extensive databases on public-school students.

The administration wants this data to include much more than name, address and test scores. According to the National Data Collection Model, the government should collect information on health-care history, family income and family voting status. In its view, public schools offer a golden opportunity to mine reams of data from a captive audience.

The department’s eagerness to get control of all this information is almost palpable. But current federal law prohibits a nationwide student database and strictly limits disclosure of a student’s personal information. So the department has determined that it can overcome the legal obstacles by simply bypassing Congress and essentially rewriting the federal privacy statute.

Last April, the department proposed regulations that would allow it and other agencies to share a student’s personal information with practically any government agency or even private company, as long as the disclosure could be said to support an evaluation of an “education program,” broadly defined. That’s how the CDC might end up with your daughter’s health records or the Department of Labor with your son’s test scores.

And you’d have no right to object — in fact, you’d probably never even know about the disclosure.

Not surprisingly, these proposed regulations provoked a firestorm of criticism. But on Dec. 2, the Department of Education rejected almost all the criticisms and released the regulations. As of Jan. 3, 2012, interstate and intergovernmental access to your child’s personal information will be practically unlimited. The federal government will have a de facto nationwide database of supposedly confidential student information.

The department says this won’t happen. If the states choose to link their data systems, it says, that’s their business, but “the federal government would not play a role” in operating the resulting megadatabase.

This denial is, to say the least, disingenuous. The department would have access to the data systems of each of the 50 states and would be allowed to share that data with anyone it chooses, as long as it uses the right language to justify the disclosure.

And just as the department used the promise of federal money to coerce the states into developing these systems, it would almost certainly do the same to make them link their systems. The result would be a nationwide student database, whether or not it’s “operated” from an office in Washington.

The loosening of student-privacy protection would greatly increase the risks of unauthorized disclosure of personal data. Even the authorized disclosure would be limited only by the imaginations of federal bureaucrats.

Unless Congress steps in and reclaims its authority, student privacy and parental control over education will be relics of the past.

Emmett McGroarty is executive director of the Preserve Innocence Initiative of the American Principles Project. Jane Robbins is a senior fellow with the American Principles Project.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... z1hrsrfwb5

User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 165 guests