MediaPost reported ICE issued an RFI for “Big Data & Ad Tech”—although it’s not clear what the hell that means. Here’s the RFI Purpose verbatim:
This RFI is seeking market research information to obtain industry feedback from qualified professionals that could provide operational platforms and data services. It is the Government’s intent to select several respondents to this RFI to present a live demonstration of their operational capabilities, platforms and data services that can support the overall need. This RFI does not constitute a solicitation, nor does it commit the Government to issue a solicitation or make an award.
It’s also unclear if White advertising agencies and White media firms might respond, especially since so many are touting data and tech capabilities.
Plus, would the RFI ultimately lead to an RFP and subsequent pitch?
It’s a mysterious scenario. If advertising agencies engage in an account review, will Latino shops be invited to participate?
And if ICE doesn’t like an RFI response, would the submitting enterprise be subject to detainment, deportation, and/or deadly force?
Finally, President Donald J. Trump might earn a repeat for White Man Of The Year honors.
ICE Issues RFI For ‘Ad Tech Compliant’ Data
By Wendy Davis
Immigration and Customs Enforcement appears to be exploring whether it can harness ad-tech data for investigations, according to a request for information published late last week in the Federal Register.
The agency is “gathering information to better understand how the industry’s commercial Big Data and ad tech providers can directly support investigations activities,” the request stated.
ICE added that it aims “to understand the current state of Ad Tech compliant and location data services available to federal investigative and operational entities, considering regulatory constraints and privacy expectations of support investigations activities.”
ICE didn’t explain what it means by the terms in its request, including the phrase “Ad Tech compliant.”
The organization also suggested it’s interested in software capable of handling complex datasets.
ICE writes that it is “working with increasing volumes of criminal, civil, and regulatory, administrative documentation from numerous internal and external sources,” and is “assessing the marketplace for ... solutions comparable to large providers of investigative data and legal/risk analytics.”
The agency did not respond to MediaPost’s request for comment.
ICE says its request is “solely for market research, planning and information gathering purposes and is not to be construed as a commitment by the government to issue a subsequent solicitation.”
Nonetheless, the request is “alarming,” says John Davisson, a deputy director at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
“It is a really troubling distillation of the alignment between commercial surveillance and state surveillance that has been growing for a long time now,” he tells MediaPost.
ICE already has deals with tech companies that offer information that can be used to identify individuals.
Among other examples, the agency has purchased facial recognition technology, and reportedly has tapped Palantir to develop a tool capable of determining home addresses of specific individuals ICE wants to detain and deport.
Privacy advocates and some federal lawmakers have long raised concerns about the sale of commercial data to the government, arguing that law enforcement agencies shouldn’t obtain non-public data without first seeking approval from a judge.
Last year, the House passed the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act (HR 4639), which would have required federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to obtain a court order before buying personal information from data brokers, and also prohibit government agencies from purchasing data obtained through deception or violations of a privacy policy.
The Senate has not passed the measure.
The ad industry group Network Advertising Initiative supported the bill, as did more than 40 advocacy organizations including the Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment