Never let a serious crisis go to waste, goes the old axiom. And in the context of America’s ongoing tension regarding race and policing, it would appear that the crisis has provided a ripe opportunity to further centralize policing in the United States by mining data from state and local law enforcement agencies.

At a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey promised a panel of senators that he would spend the remaining seven years of his 10-year term to build a national database to monitor the role of race in use of force by police across the country.

“We simply must collect data that is reliable nationwide about police use of deadly force in altercations, encounters, with civilians,” Comey said, in an exchange with Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., (F, 11%). “If there is anything more inherently governmental than that, I can’t imagine what it is.”

During the hearing, Comey said that the need for the database is due to the fact that the only available information that the public has about policing incidents and the use of force comes from newspapers, whose “data isn’t comprehensive”:

“We will build a nationwide database that the FBI will collect that shows us what happened, when, who was involved, what were they like, what were the circumstances so we can have informed conversations.”

Furthermore, this is a project that Comey said could span through the next two presidential administrations.

“We are going to do this,” the FBI director continued, “One of the beauties of a 10-year term is I am not going to shut up about this. I have seven years to go.”

Ultimately, the goal of James Comey’s proposed policing data project would be to definitively answer questions about whether or not deadly force is applied disproportionately against minorities by police, he says:

“No one in this country knows whether the use of deadly force against any particular group — African-Americans most particularly — is up, down, or sideways over the last 10 years,” Comey told the committee. “Do we have an epidemic of violence? No one knows that. We could, we might not — we simply must gather the information so we can care deeply and solve these problems.”

James Comey’s testimony does sound good at first blush. And had the director’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of the law not been botched over the summer by the bureau’s handling of the Clinton email scandal investigation, there might even be a greater danger of congressmen joining hands to slap the all-powerful “bipartisan” label on this effort and push it forward in the name of “transparency.”

While the narrative of police disproportionately and indiscriminately gunning down unarmed black men is a popular one — and individual incidents generate easy, eye-grabbing headlines for media outlets — the statistics currently available would say otherwise.

A 2015 Washington Post study of police shootings — one of the newspaper pieces that Comey disparaged in the hearing — revealed that incidents of white law enforcement officers shooting unarmed black men accounted for less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings. Furthermore, multiple criminology studies have found that police were actually more hesitant to shoot black suspects who posed a credible threat (versus white suspects).

Giving the FBI and Department of Justice a federally-mandated periscope to look over the shoulder of every beat cop in the country will likely only exacerbate the phenomenon and put more police lives in danger by forcing them to second-guess themselves every time a suspect poses a credible threat.

While this might be an adequate diagnosis of the problem that popular racial policing narrative is, at best, poorly-informed, Comey’s solution is just another means of contributing to the Obama administration’s years-long efforts to centralize everyday policing in the United States.

Past proposals include the president’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, and the host of grants that serve as dangling carrots for local law enforcement to hand over more authority to the feds in exchange for funds.

Contrary to the “Hope and Change” narrative that the president sold voters, the Obama years have seen an unquestionable resurgence in racial tension in the United States. And this tension has been used as excuse at nearly every single instance as a vehicle to increase federal oversight and control over law enforcement — which, by nature, should be a local undertaking.

While James Comey’s FBI database may seem like a benign solution to questions about racial impetus in police shootings, it has to be viewed as part of a greater pattern to increase the DOJ’s presence over local law enforcement. (For more from the author of “James Comey Promises FBI Database to Track Race-Based Police Activity” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Foreign hackers have broken into two state election databases, according to evidence uncovered by the FBI, which is now warning election officials nationwide to enhance the security of their computer systems.

Yahoo! News reports the FBI’s Cyber Division sent out a “flash” alert indicating that the FBI received information of two separate IP addresses detected in the July 2016 compromise of a state’s Board of Election website and the August 2016 “attempted intrusion” of another state’s Board of Election system.

The FBI bulletin did not identify which states were compromised, but Yahoo! cited “sources familiar with the document” that indicated voter registration databases in Arizona and Illinois were targeted by suspected foreign hackers.

In the Illinois case, officials were forced to shut down the state’s voter registration system for ten days in late July, after the hackers managed to download personal data on up to 200,000 state voters, Ken Menzel, the general counsel of the Illinois Board of Elections, said in an interview. The Arizona attack was more limited, involving malicious software that was introduced into its voter registration system but no successful exfiltration of data, a state official said.

The FBI bulletin listed eight separate IP addresses that were the sources of the two attacks and suggested that the attacks may have been linked, noting that one of the IP addresses was used in both intrusions. The bulletin implied that the bureau was looking for any signs that the attacks may have been attempting to target even more than the two states. “The FBI is requesting that states contact their Board of Elections and determine if any similar activity to their logs, both inbound and outbound, has been detected,” the alert reads. “Attempts should not be made to touch or ping the IP addresses directly.”

This news comes amid recent cyber attacks from suspected foreign actors on the Democratic National Committee and Democratic members of Congress. (For more from the author of “FBI Says Two State Election Databases Compromised by Foreign Hackers” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Subjectivity and sluggishness plague the FBI’s cybersecurity threat prioritization process, leaving room for bad actors to exploit national security weaknesses, according to a new Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Inspector General (IG) report.

The FBI’s Cyber Division only conducts its Threat Review Prioritization (TRP) review once a year. Unnamed FBI officials in the report described using review techniques as a “gut check” that’s based more on the “loudest person in the room” than objective criteria.

“We found the criteria used in the TRP process are subjective and open to interpretation,” the IG said. “As a result, the FBI’s TRP process does not prioritize cyber threats using an algorithmic, objective, data-driven, reproducible, and auditable manner.”

“In addition, we found that TRP may not be agile enough to identify emerging cyber threats,” the IG added. “We believe that as cyber threats continue to increase in size and complexity, lack of objective, data-driven prioritization can hinder the FBI’s ability to effectively prioritize the most serious threats.”

The FBI claims protecting the U.S. against cyber attacks is its third priority, behind conducting counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations.

The FBI tried to address TRP’s subjectivity in 2012 by adding a second layer of cybersecurity threat analysis, a system called the Threat Examination and Scoping (TExAS) tool. TExAS has the potential to make the FBI Cyber Division’s approach to threats more objective, but the FBI hasn’t developed policies and procedures dictating who enters data into that second system, or how, the IG said.

“Since its implementation, the TExAS tool has been managed without documented policies and procedures detailing the roles and responsibilities for entering data about each threat,” the IG stated.

The IG also found the Cyber Division can’t determine how it’s allocating its resources to any given cyber threat.

“Without the ability to track the time agents spend by threat, the FBI cannot be sure that it is appropriately aligning its cyber resources to its highest priority threats, a vital capability for a threat-driven organization in the current cyber climate,” the IG said.

The IG said the FBI should use an algorithmic, data-driven, objective methodology to analyze and prioritize cyber threats, and use documented policies and procedures dictating who enters data and how. The FBI should also analyze its cybersecurity priorities at least every 30 days, instead of annually, the IG said. (For more from the author of “FBI Fails at Prioritizing Cyber Threats, Report Finds” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.