The described technology relates generally to processing intelligence information and particularly to tracking aliases of suspects and routing intelligence information.
As the security of governments, organizations (e.g., businesses), and individuals continues to be threatened by various groups and individuals (e.g., terrorist groups and their members), it is increasingly important to identify future security threats (e.g., planned attacks) before they occur so they can be prevented. In many cases, security personnel (e.g., law enforcement officials) whose job it is to prevent or otherwise address security threats do not have access to the necessary information to identify those threats before they occur (e.g., information about the attack preparation activities of terrorist groups). In other situations, security personnel may have access to the necessary information, but the information may be obscured by an overabundance of irrelevant information. Finally, the intelligence information may be in an unanalyzed form from which it is difficult to identify the security threats. For example, vast amounts of information, such as reports and other communications, may be generated and exchanged by security personnel. Because of the volume of such information, it is not practical to expect a security organization to review every single piece of information and route it to the appropriate security personnel for further processing in a timely manner. As a result, some valuable information may be left unprocessed for quite some time, or it may never get processed at all. In addition, information about individuals may identify the same individual in different ways. For example, a name in a foreign language may have many acceptable but different English-language translations. In such a case, it may be difficult to identify the relationship between two pieces of information that relate to the same individual because of the differences in name-translation. In addition, various security systems (e.g., an FBI suspect database and an Interpol information system) may each contain different information that cumulatively would provide valuable intelligence, but individually each piece of information provides little insight. Moreover, various security systems may store their information in vastly different ways, languages, and formats. As a result, there has been very little integration of the information from these diverse security systems.
Accordingly, it would be beneficial to provide automated techniques for analyzing various types of information related to possible security threats and routing that information to appropriate security personnel for further processing and identifying of information that relates to suspect individuals and groups.
A method and system for routing intelligence information related to security is provided. In one embodiment, the security system provides rules that identify conditions and routing instructions that are to be applied to individual pieces of intelligence information. For example, a rule may specify that an electronic mail message received by a security organization (e.g., a local police department) should be routed to each member of a terrorist task force when the message contains the keyword “terrorist.” The security organization may create and modify rules to ensure the appropriate routing of intelligence information in a timely manner. The security system may receive intelligence information from various sources via various input mechanisms. For example, the security system may receive information directly from other security systems, it may receive electronic mail messages from the public reporting suspicious activity, it may receive alerts from government agencies (e.g., the FBI and CIA), it may receive reports from the security personnel of the security organization utilizing the system via a user interface, etc.
Regardless of the form or source of intelligence information, the security system analyzes the intelligence information to determine whether any conditions of the rules are satisfied. This analysis may include searching the intelligence information for keywords, identifying overall concepts or topics of the intelligence information (e.g., using natural language processing techniques), identifying individuals or groups who are the subject of the intelligence information, etc. When a condition of a rule is satisfied, the security system sends a notification of the intelligence information in accordance with the routing instructions for that rule. The notification may be provided via the home page of a security system, an electronic mail message, a pager message, a wireless personal digital assistant, a cell phone, or a facsimile, depending on the urgency of the intelligence information. In this way, intelligence information can be automatically and quickly prioritized and routed to the appropriate security personnel for further processing.
In another embodiment, the security system identifies duplicate records of intelligence information relating to an individual. The security system may maintain a database that contains a record for each individual who has been identified to the system. However, because one individual may be identified by different names or by different spellings of the same name, the security system may have multiple records representing the intelligence information for the same individual. To identify such duplicate records, the security system generates a de-duplication key for each record that is derived from the contents of the various fields of the record. For example, the de-duplication key may be a hash value generated by applying a hashing function to the name, the address, and the eye and hair color fields of the record. The security system then determines whether any of the de-duplication keys of a record matches the de-duplication keys for other records. If so, the security system indicates that the records may be related to the same individual. The security system may apply a metric, such as a mathematical distance metric, to de-duplication keys to determine whether the keys match. In this way, the security system can help ensure that intelligence information gathered from various sources about a single individual is correctly attributed to that individual.
In another embodiment, the security system tracks known aliases of individuals from intelligence information that has been gathered. The security system may maintain a database with a record for each individual that is associated with intelligence information. Each individual may be assigned a primary identifier. Whenever security personnel become aware of an alias or other moniker of an individual, the security system allows the security personnel to store that alias in conjunction with the record for that individual. When new intelligence information is received that identifies the individual by a listed alias, the security system can use the stored alias information to associate the intelligence information with the correct record in the database. In this way, individuals can be correctly tracked regardless of the alias that is associated with particular pieces of intelligence information.
In another embodiment, a security application system executes security processes (e.g., business processes) that access information provided by diverse security systems. These diverse security systems may store intelligence information in different formats, languages, and organizations. For example, an FBI suspect database may store its intelligence information in a very different way than a CIA suspect database. The security application system may contain a security process store that defines various security processes. These security processes access security information via a security object model that is defined explicitly for the security environment. For example, the object model may include the definition of a suspect object, a group object, a communications object, etc. The security processes interact with the common objects to access information from the various security systems in a uniform manner. The security application system provides transformations that are used to automatically transform intelligence information from the various security systems into the format of the common objects. The security application system also provides a transport mechanism for transporting security information between the security application system and the security systems. Each security system may have an adapter that allows it to communicate with the transport mechanism. The security application system, also referred to as the universal security application network, provides a framework for execution of security processes that process and exchange intelligence information between various security systems.
The web engine receives intelligence information from the client computers and receives requests to access intelligence information stored on the security system. The web engine routes intelligence information or requests for intelligence information to the appropriate component of the security system. The content-based analysis component analyzes received intelligence information to determine whether any of the routing rules are satisfied. The received intelligence information may include electronic mail messages, reports generated by security personnel, alerts received from security organizations, intercepted communications, etc. The routing component routes the intelligence information in accordance with the routing instructions of the routing rules that the content-based analysis component indicates have been satisfied. For example, intelligence information relating to a certain suspect may be sent to the security personnel who are responsible for tracking the whereabouts of that suspect. The routing rules store contains a mapping of conditions to routing instructions. When intelligence information satisfies a condition, then the intelligence information is routed in accordance with the routing instructions. The alias matching component may detect suspect records that relate to the same individual and are thus considered duplicates. The alias matching component may compare the contents of various fields of the records to determine whether the records may represent the same individual. In addition, the alias matching component allows for the recording of aliases for an individual so that intelligence information identified with an alias is associated with the correct individual. The security database may contain information related to investigations (or cases), groups, suspects, and other intelligence information. When an investigation is started, an investigation record is created that may relate to one or more groups and one or more suspects. The investigation may also have associated intelligence information. Each group may have one or more associated suspects and may have associated intelligence information. Each suspect may have associated intelligence information.
The computers (e.g., client computer and security server) may include a central processing unit, memory, input devices (e.g., keyboard and pointing devices), output devices (e.g., display devices), and storage devices (e.g., disk drives). The memory and storage devices are computer-readable media that may contain instructions that implement the security system. In addition, the data structures and message structures may be stored or transmitted via a data transmission medium, such as a signal on a communications link.
The adapters relay events from the security systems to the integration server and can import configurations of the security systems into the security integration server. In addition, the universal security application network may include encryption and authentication mechanisms to ensure the security and integrity of the intelligence information. For example, authentication will help ensure that a security process is accessing the intended security system, rather than an impostor security system. The object model may contain the definition of various security-related objects. The objects may be defined using standard object definition tools. The defined objects may include a suspect object, a group object, a flight object, a communications object, etc. These object definitions specify the data and functions or methods associated with each object. For example, a suspect object may contain data such as name, address, nationality, color of hair, etc. The suspect object may have functions such as update a data field, get affiliated groups, get related communications, etc. The transformation store contains transformations for transforming intelligence information received from the security systems to the format used by the object model, and vice versa. For example, a suspect object may include a globally unique identifier for each suspect. A transformation for a security system that does not use globally unique identifiers may need to access an identification server to determine the globally unique identifier for each suspect. The transformations may be specified as a computer program, an XML stylesheet Language Transform (“XSLT”), etc. The security process store contains the security processes that have been defined. A security process may be specified as a script, a process flow, an executable program, etc. In one embodiment, the security processes are defined using the Web Services Flow Language (“WSFL”). The security processes orchestrate a sequence of steps across multiple applications provided by the security systems to achieve a security objective. The security process controller coordinates the execution of the security processes. The security process controller may instantiate objects and invoke functions of the objects in accordance with the various security processes. The security process controller may also initiate the execution of security processes based on predefined conditions and events. For example, the security process controller may launch a certain security process each time an FBI alert is received. Although not shown, the security integration network may provide a standard library of security routines that may be invoked by the security processes. For example, a standard security routine might be to identify whether two suspect objects represent the same individual, or to apply security rules to various objects and take the appropriate action as defined by those rules. The security integration server may also include various tools to facilitate the development of security processes. These tools may aid in the development of transformations, the defining of common objects, and the writing of process flows.
The universal security application network may use technology described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/968,134, filed Sep. 29, 2001 and entitled “SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR QUEUING DATA FOR AN APPLICATION SERVER;” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/967,898, filed Sep. 28, 2001 and entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR TRACKING AND EXCHANGING INCREMENTAL CHANGES TO HIERARCHICAL OBJECTS;” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/968,735, filed Sep. 29, 2001 and entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR USING INTEGRATION OBJECTS WITH ENTERPRISE BUSINESS APPLICATIONS;” U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/835,162, filed Apr. 13, 2001 and entitled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MAPPING BETWEEN XML AND RELATIONAL REPRESENTATIONS,” which are hereby incorporated by reference.
From the foregoing, it will be appreciated that although specific embodiments of the technology have been described herein for purposes of illustration, various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not limited except by the appended claims.
This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/277,549, entitled “Method and System for Processing Intelligence Information”, filed Oct. 21, 2002, and naming Matthew Scott Malden, Daniel Edward Israel, Robert Brent Pinkerton, Frank Warren Bishop, Jr., Prashant B. Patel, Christopher Scott Nash, Rahul Viswanathan, Arun Abichandani, Rajani Yelkur, Hang Yee Wong, and Jackson Chang as inventors which in turn claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/392,236 filed Jun. 27, 2002, entitled, “Method and System for Processing Intelligence Information.” This application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/185,871, filed Jun. 27, 2002, entitled, “IDENTIFYING SECURITY THREATS” (now abandoned); U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/392,719, filed Jun. 27, 2002, entitled, “DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ABOUT SECURITY THREATS”; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/244,137, filed Sep. 12, 2002, entitled, “DISSEMINATING INFORMATION ABOUT SECURITY THREATS,” all of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4974191 | Amirghodsi et al. | Nov 1990 | A |
5303149 | Janigian | Apr 1994 | A |
5386559 | Eisenberg et al. | Jan 1995 | A |
5434994 | Shaheen et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5493692 | Theimer et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5548506 | Srinivasan | Aug 1996 | A |
5680611 | Rail et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5715371 | Ahamed et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5745900 | Burrows | Apr 1998 | A |
5862325 | Reed et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
6108711 | Beck | Aug 2000 | A |
6141663 | Hunkins et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6167433 | Maples et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6182221 | Hsu et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6237027 | Namekawa | May 2001 | B1 |
6263349 | Anderson | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263362 | Donoho et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6324262 | Tuttle | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6347374 | Drake | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6356936 | Donoho et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6369705 | Kennedy | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6442241 | Tsumpes | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6462665 | Tarlton et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6542896 | Gruenwald | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6601076 | McCaw et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6606744 | Mikurak | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6629106 | Narayanaswamy | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6633240 | Sweatt | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6654786 | Fox et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6658423 | Pugh et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6704874 | Porras | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6724861 | Newland et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6738456 | Wrona | May 2004 | B2 |
6745021 | Stevens | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6757689 | Battas et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6829478 | Layton et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6901437 | Li | May 2005 | B1 |
6965886 | Govrin | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7177909 | Stark et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7246150 | Donoho et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7343302 | Aratow et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7616942 | Karl et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
8742934 | Sarpy, Sr. | Jun 2014 | B1 |
20020049913 | Lumme | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020129081 | Rai et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020165724 | Blankesteijn | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020188522 | McCall | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009385 | Tucciarone et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030037094 | Douceur et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030041059 | Lepien | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030055689 | Block et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030066030 | Curns et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030097359 | Ruediger | May 2003 | A1 |
20030141971 | Heiken | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030160693 | Hisano | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030179089 | Sweatt | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030193394 | Lamb | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030222777 | Sweatt | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040008125 | Aratow et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20050198087 | Bremers | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050222994 | Douceur et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060265462 | Stark et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070192422 | Stark et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070207771 | Bowser et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20090150442 | Barnard | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20120137367 | Dupont | May 2012 | A1 |
20130163822 | Chigos | Jun 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0034897 | Jun 2000 | WO |
Entry |
---|
ETSI ES 201 671 V2.1.1 (Sep. 2001) “Telecommunications security; Lawful Interception; Handover interface for the lawful interception of telecommunications traffic,” Jul. 2001, pp. 1-140. |
Aiken, Peter, Microsoft Computer Dictionary 2002, Microsoft Press, Fifth Edition. |
IBM, OpenAir.com ‘Turbocharges’ Software for Expanded ASP Delivery, Aug. 2001; 1 page. |
“Introducing Vality Veri-Quest to Identify and Track the Records of ‘Most Wanted’ Suspects,” Business Wire, Nov. 5, 2001. |
Matthews, William, “In the System,” www.FCW.com, Jan. 21, 2002. |
Microsoft Project 2002 Product Guide, Microsoft Corporation, Jun. 6, 2002, p. 1. |
Microsoft Project 2002: A Simple Step to Easier Project Management, Microsoft Corporation, Aug. 8, 2002, p. 1. |
Microsoft Project 2002: New Feature Guide, Microsoft Corporation, 2002, pp. 1-82. |
Microsoft Project 2002: Product and Technology Catalog, Microsoft Corporation, Dec. 9, 2002, pp. 1-3. |
Microsoft Project Standard 2002 Tour, Jun. 6, 2002, 4 pages. |
Microsoft Project: A Simple Step to Easier Project Management, Microsoft Project 2002: It's Easier Than You Think, Microsoft Corporation, Aug. 2002, 10 pages. |
Myron, David, “Targeting Terrorism,” CRM Magazine, Apr. 2002. |
OpenAir, “OpenAir Product Update,” Sep. 21, 2000, OpenAir.com, p. 1-4. |
OpenAir.com, Product Update—Jun. 21, 2001, http://web.archive.org/web/20011007153900/http''//www.openair.com/home/n.- sub.--p.sub.—update062101.htm1.10-2001. |
PSA Products, Siebel eBusiness, Jul. 20, 2001; 6 pages. |
Siebel Professional Services Automation: Empowering Services Organizations to Maximize Customer Satisfaction and Increase Revenue, Siebel eBusiness, Jul. 18, 2001, 2 pages. |
The Emergency Email Network, Inc., Resource Document #RC202903, published Jun. 11, 2002, http://web.archive.org/web/20020611220429/http://www.emergencymailnetwork- .com/rc202903.html, pp. 1-7. |
Tim Pyron, Special Edition Using Microsoft Project 2000, Sep. 2000, Que Publishing, Introduction, Chapter 4 and 20. |
United States Patent and Trademark Office, Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Oct. 2005. |
www.mathworld.wolfram.com, retrieved with the Internet Wayback Machine <www.archive.org>, date: May 10, 2000. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130227046 A1 | Aug 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60392236 | Jun 2002 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10277549 | Oct 2002 | US |
Child | 13862994 | US |