Data Profiling

Data profiling in this context is the process of assembling information about a particular individual in order to generate a profile — that is, a picture of their patterns and behavior (compare this use of the term data profiling with that used in statistics or data management where data profiling is the examination of information describing the data or data set itself).

Data profiling is used in security, law enforcement and intelligence operations for a variety of applications — for example, to assess "trust" for security clearances or to grant authorization relating to a trusted system, or to identify or apprehend suspects or threats. The government is able to access information from third parties — for example, banks, credit companies or employers, etc. — by requesting access informally, by compelling access through the use of subpoenas or other procedures, or by purchasing data from commercial data aggregators or data brokers. Under United States v. Miller (1976), data held by third parties is generally not subject to Fourth Amendment warrant requirements. Private companies and private investigators can also generally access or purchase data from these aggregators.

Information relating to any individual transaction is easily available because it is not generally highly valued in isolation, however, when many such transactions are aggregated they can be used to assemble a detailed profile revealing the actions, habits and preferences of the individual.

In the past, much information about individuals has been protected by practical obscurity (a term used by Justice Stevens in his opinion in USDOJ v. Reporters Committee, 1989). Practical obscurity refers to the practical difficulty of aggregating or analyzing a large number of data points in different physical locations. In addition, information was often transient and not easily available after the fact. Further, even where data was available, correlation of paper-based records was a laborious process. Electronic, particularly digital, record-keeping has undermined this practical obscurity by making data easily available and potentially making aggregation and analysis possible at significantly lower costs.

Thus, as more information becomes available in electronic form — for example, as public records such birth, court, tax and other records are made available online — the ability to create very detailed data profiles increases and may raise concerns.

Miranda Rights

The Miranda warning is a police warning that is given to criminal suspects in police custody in the United States before they are asked questions relating to the commission of crimes. Police may request biographical information such as name, date of birth and address without reading suspects their Miranda warnings. Compulsory confessions will not constitute admissible evidence unless suspects have been made aware of and waived their "Miranda rights".



The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal suspect's Fifth Amendment right to avoid coercive self-incrimination (see right to silence). However, since its creation by the Warren Court, the Supreme Court has indicated that the Miranda decision imposes "prophylactic" or preventative safeguards rather than protections mandated by the Fifth Amendment privilege.



Miranda rights



The Supreme Court did not specify the exact wording to be used when informing a suspect of his or her rights. However, they did set down a set of guidelines which must be followed. The ruling states:



...The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him.



As a result, American English has acquired the verb Mirandize, meaning to read to a suspect his or her Miranda rights (when that suspect is taken into custody for the purpose of interrogation).



Typical Miranda warning



Though every U.S. jurisdiction has its own regulations regarding what, precisely, must be said to a person when they are arrested, the typical warning is as follows:



You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.



The courts have since ruled that the warning must be "meaningful", so it is usually required that the suspect be asked if he understands his rights. Sometimes, firm answers of "yes" are required. An arrestee's silence is not a waiver. Evidence has been ruled inadmissible because of an arrestee's poor knowledge of English and the failure of arresting officers to provide the warning in the arrestee's language.



Also because of various education levels, officers must make sure the suspect understands what the officer is saying. It may be necessary to "translate" to the suspect's level of understanding. Courts have ruled this admissible as long as the original waiver is said and the "translation" is recorded either on paper or on tape.

The right of a juvenile to remain silent without his or her parent or guardian present is provided in some jurisdictions.