A letter in Missouri State from February 20th has stoked a lot of attention by attempting to profile domestic militia and terrorist members, and doing a really poor job of it. Chuck Baldwin for example found it offensive:

On March 23, DPS Director John Britt sent an apology letter to Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and me stating, “I have ordered that the offending report be edited so as to excise all reference to Ron Paul, Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin and to any third-party political organizations.”

The report was apparently full of errors, omissions, grammar and spelling errors. That should say a lot, but instead of being dismissed as sloppy work and bad governance, it had fed right into conspiracy theorists hands. It has been taken very seriously and a retraction demanded.

Then, on Wednesday, March 25, the head of the Missouri State Highway Patrol, Col. James F. Keathley, ordered the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) to “permanently cease distribution” of this abysmal report. Keathley said that neither he nor Britt had read the report before it was distributed.

The bottom line here is that bad analysis in intelligence data can do more harm than good for the people trying to carry out their enforcement duties. State troopers are being killed by militia members so it seems entirely reasonable for the MIAC to try and prepare them better after researching the data. Unfortunately in this case they just fueled more conspiracy and anti-enforcement rhetoric. Instead they could have spent time trying to understand and document whether groups in question have a way to distinguish themselves from militias and extremists. This is true of the right and left alike, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Missouri paper has some interesting quotes and details on this particular case:

The report’s most controversial passage states that militia “most commonly associate with third-party political groups” and support presidential candidates such as Ron Paul, former Constitutional Party candidate Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate last year.

[Lt. John Hotz of the Missouri State Highway Patrol]said using those or similar factors to determine whether someone could be a terrorist is not profiling. He said people who display signs or bumper stickers from such groups are not in danger of harassment from police.

“It’s giving the makeup of militia members and their political beliefs,” Hotz said of the report. “It’s not saying that everybody who supports these candidates is involved in a militia. It’s not even saying that all militias are bad.”

Saying that the report gives the makeup of a group and yet fails to provide analysis is exactly the kind of thing that creates confusion. At some point the report might as well say militia members breathe the air, eat food, and wear clothing. No surprise that non-militia members would be offended and up in arms (pun intended) about being lumped in with dangerous militias. On the other hand, those offended have not been entirely rational in their responses either.

At a “Tea Party” to protest wasteful government spending Thursday in Flat Branch Park, several people displaying the Revolutionary War-replica “Don’t Tread On Me” flag were upset to learn the MIAC report lists the banner as a “militia symbol.”

“That’s insane,” said Doug Wendt looking at the MIAC document. “That is not a militia symbol. That is American history. This is historic. The only animosity” American colonists “ever directed with this was towards England.”

Meanings change and imagery is adopted and manipulated. Control can be lost. The swastika is the obvious example. It has had its meaning changed irrevocably, regardless of history before Nazi Germany. Moreover, a symbol of animosity is not exactly a neutral spot to take a position with. I can see why some militias might want to appropriate it but even the peace symbol could be appropriated, which takes us back to breathing air. This is a red herring to the issue of detecting threats and profiling. It isn’t easy, and it requires oversight and transparency. The real story is that a horribly bad job was done by MIAC, oversight was missing, but transparency (albeit a leak) led to a retraction. Let us hope someone gives this more thought the next time they try and help law enforcement officers identify threats to their own safety, as well as the safety of others. I suspect if someone were to compare the recent Oakland police slayings with those in Pittsburgh and correlate just the case facts, it would produce a more tangible threat analysis than one that tries to create a link to political affiliation or speech.

A New York Times Op-Ed makes a compelling argument for new understandings of morality:

Like bees, humans have long lived or died based on their ability to divide labor, help each other and stand together in the face of common threats. Many of our moral emotions and intuitions reflect that history. We don’t just care about our individual rights, or even the rights of other individuals. We also care about loyalty, respect, traditions, religions. We are all the descendents of successful cooperators.

This is a very helpful explanation the role of compliance as a social network phenomenon rather than a top-down system.

There are times, often the most important moments in our lives, when in fact we do use reason to override moral intuitions, and often those reasons — along with new intuitions — come from our friends.

Or…maybe they come from industry experts and regulators.