At Issue with Spy from the Sky Program

This surveillance program by the US Marshals Service began in 2007, and it is disturbing to think that it has gone on that long without the general public not knowing about it.  September 11th must've traumatized the Bush Administration into all sorts of spy activities, so it isn't surprising that this program began under their watch.  I imagine it is lawful, as the Wall Street Journal reports, but the question is about ethics and trust.

The device is nicknamed "dirtboxes," after the acronym of the company that makes them: Digital Receiver Technology:

Planes are equipped with devices... which mimic cell towers of large telecommunications firms and trick cellphones into reporting their unique registration information.

The technology in the two-foot-square device enables investigators to scoop data from tens of thousands of cellphones in a single flight, collecting their identifying information and general location, these people said.

Reference: Americans’ Cellphones Targeted in Secret U.S. Spy Program.

It may be hard to imagine how US Marshals can get court approval, for example, for mimicry and  trickery, but apparently they have.  Maybe judges aren't savvy enough yet to grasp the full meaning and implication of technology-related requests for approval.  Regardless, this in itself is disturbing, too.  So let's step back, and look at three pressing issues:

Privacy vs Protection

Because bad guys lurk in our midst across the world, citizens and officials alike must navigate that fine line of tracking these bad guys and thereby protecting us from them and tracking these bad guys and intruding into our privacy.  Even before September 11th, I don't think there was any possible way for officials to protect us 100% and ensure our privacy 100% at the same time.  Something has to give, and the outcome is some balance of both.  That is, we have to compromise some degree of privacy, in order to gain a greater measure of protection.  What that specific balance is, exactly, must be the crux of the matter for all of us. 

Even though we are now 13 years post-September 11th, I argue that we are very much embroiled in navigating our way forward in a radically altered landscape.  Consider all the media and technology innovations, plus economic devastation, natural disasters and political upheavals, since September 11th, and we sure have an unprecedented volume of issues to work through.  The "dirtbox" program is just one.

Targeting Accuracy

We would all like to use devices and fashion algorithms that are 100% accurate: If Person A is a bad guy, we want our surveillance technology to identify him or her as such (i.e. True Positive).  Alternatively, if Person B is a good guy, we want our technology to dismiss him or her (i.e. True Negative).  But as I wrote in Type I and Type II Errors are Real Possibilities, no device or algorithm is 100% foolproof.  So there are bound to be instances where bad guy Person A is dismissed (i.e. False Negative) and where good guy Person B is nabbed (i.e. False Positive). 

To give you a firsthand sense of the inevitable flaws or shortcoming of high technology and sophisticated algorithms, track ads that you see on Gmail, YouTube, Facebook or Twitter.  They are supposed to be based on information Google & Co. have gathered about us, but for a week or so assess how accurately these ads speak to our personality, interests or needs.  Some ads may be so accurate so as to be creepy, but how often are they completely (100%) accurate?

So my concern is that US Marshals committing False Positive or False Negative errors.

Cat and Mouse Game

Speaking of media and technology innovations, I imagine that US Marshals are continually assessing their methods, processes and algorithms to keep Americans safe.  Moreover, we don't know to what extent "dirt boxes" are still operational, but we can be sure that there is a host of surveillance programs at officials' disposal.  Because media and technology development rarely goes to sleep, we can also be sure that such programs have become increasingly more sophisticated and perhaps even sneakier and trickier.

Let's not forget as well that good guys and bad guys alike can, and do, participate in that media and technology development.  So perhaps people have found, or are finding, ways to trick the trickster back.  That is, maybe there are already smartphones in the market that outsmart "dirt boxes," such as sending dummy information or firewalling these airborne devices from picking up information. 

So if bad guy Person A is very tech savvy, how will US Marshals nab him or her?