Friday, July 29, 2011

National Interest: Jan Lok Sabha

What a pleasant feeling it is writing a curtain-raiser of sorts to a new Parliament session. A resumption of old-fashioned politics will give the political class a chance to recover from recent reverses. It will also be its opportunity to redeem itself by showing this country how it is actually governed, and how the opinion of its people is reflected by the government of the day, as also its opposition.


Unless somebody conjures up a clever face-saver quickly, Anna Hazare and his team will be back at Jantar Mantar a day after Independence Day, and exactly in the middle of this one-month session. There is no chance in hell Parliament would even consider his deadline of passing any Lokpal Bill by August 15. In fact, chances are this bill may first have to go to a parliamentary committee for the usual fine-tuning. It is too important a law to be passed in a hurry with a gun pressed to your temple. To that extent, the political class finally got its focus back. It is one thing for a motley “civil society” group fuelled by news TV and middle-class rage to hold an already embarrassed government to ransom. Taking on the institution of Parliament is a different story altogether.




First evidence that sanity had begun to be restored somewhat came last month as Anna Hazare started leading his delegation to the leaders of the various political parties (the opposition as well as the Congress) pleading the case of his version of the Lokpal legislation. That is how it should be done in a parliamentary democracy. The idea of writing a law from outside and forcing it down Parliament’s throat was both arrogant and obscene. As if you believed that your Parliament was illegitimate, full of dummies and would not be able to resist the gale-force of your presumed intellect or moral authority.

As this session begins on Monday, the important thing would be to analyse what exactly happened in those bizarre weeks when it looked like the entire political (democratic) system was going to collapse. There were the many unresolved scandals, cover-ups and popular anger. But the main reason it was able to acquire the dimensions it did was the fact that the winter session of Parliament had been such a total washout. The BJP stalled Parliament, demanding a JPC into the telecom scam. The Congress resisted, even at the cost of writing off an entire session. This will remain a slur on its record, considering that it conceded a JPC in the end anyway. But even for the BJP, in the end, it was a totally pointless exercise in point-scoring. Because the loss was not just the UPA’s, but that the entire political class was undermined. People said, here are the two coalitions, together accounting for around 430 Lok Sabha members, only interested in either stalling investigations into a great scandal or exploiting it for petty political mileage. It is convenient now to complain that the judiciary is indulging in over-reach, or that civil society is attempting a coup or that the media has become an accuser-judge-executioner. But it happened only because a totally short-sighted political class so cynically wrote off an entire session and undermined the institution it draws all its power and authority from, the national Parliament.



This short monsoon session is an opportunity now to reverse that slide. Many of the issues that destroyed the winter session are still there. The Congress-BJP relationship is no better than before. So the choice of ruining this session again is still there. But you can take encouragement from the fact that, chastened by the anti-politician mood, the two parties have been talking behind the scenes, even negotiating successfully to resolve issues with some pending legislation, particularly where bills have been sitting with committees headed by MPs of the BJP. On the Lokpal Bill, many of the finer changes suggested by Arun Jaitley on the BJP’s behalf have already been made. Of course, the BJP may take a position on putting the prime minister under the Lokpal’s jurisdiction in some qualified way, but that won’t be sufficient reason to stall Parliament. You can also sniff a secular sense of unease in the political class over the loss of face it has suffered vis-a-vis the activists, and also with what is seen as an increasing tendency on the part of the courts to encroach upon the political-executive turf. You can see that convergence quite clearly in the way the BJP tacitly supports the Centre’s challenge to the black money order and, similarly, the Centre quietly hopes that the Chhattisgarh government’s appeal against the SPO judgment succeeds to some extent. It also helps that the BJP starts this session firmly on the defensive, having lost one of its most popular chief ministers to the indictment of a Lokayukta who also happens to be among the most important members of Hazare’s team.

It is still possible that the Congress and the BJP will return to their basic instincts and resume hostilities over one thing or another. But you see indications that they might be a bit more circumspect now, and respectful of the institution through which India speaks, and is heard and governed. Of course, the prime minister himself could initiate that positive new outlook by attending this session more often than usual, and speaking, intervening, answering questions. He has nothing to lose but his utterly uncalled for reticence.

Pride and prejudice




Madhya Pradesh’s minister for cooperatives, Gaurishanker Bisen, delivered a few truly astonishing and unpleasant rants recently on a trip to Chhindwara and Seoni. He let loose at revenue officials (patwaris), at one point asserting that every single patwari was corrupt. When faced with one particular patwari in Seoni district who was said to be slacking on the job and allegedly did nothing without a bribe, a furious Bisen made him do several squats, as public humiliation and expiation.


But that’s not all — he also informed the patwari, in full public view, that he was being let off easy because he was a Gond, and that he would have killed him if he had been a Pawar. In other words, he voiced and validated the idea that a public official’s caste should determine what sort of treatment he would get from higher authorities. This was an interaction between citizens, local revenue officials and Bisen, a BJP minister and five-time MLA. Not only was this sober event reduced to a feudal farce, where an enraged minister could order “uthak-baithaks”of a supposedly errant official, the message of differential treatment to different caste groups couldn’t be more damaging.



Whatever Bisen might say in his defence, these cannot be dismissed as stray, thoughtless comments that came out of a frustrating field visit. He clearly believes his own dangerous rants — for instance, on the same day, discussing with a few Congress legislators the topic of tribal land that might have been wrongfully acquired, he also made the observation that tribals can be taught to read and write at best, they cannot learn good sense and wisdom. Remarks and acts like these, in fact, only reinforce suspicions about a deeply internalised prejudice. They display the distilled bigotry of centuries, and they convey an entire world of casteist contempt and group stereotyping. How can a person with these thoughts be allowed to report at work as a minister? The chief minister must take complaints against Bisen seriously, and meet them with exemplary action.

Not till winter?? (land acquisition bill)




For the past year, land issues have been a spark for anger and political confrontation all over the country, and the Supreme Court’s recent intervention in Greater Noida land acquisition has underlined the urgency of discovering a political solution. Meanwhile, the Reserve Bank of India said at the beginning of this year that investment would slide unless land issues were sorted out. And, sure enough, FDI numbers have shown an alarming slide while Indian companies, able and willing to invest abroad, are also postponing or cancelling investment in the country till comprehensive, transparent and fair land acquisition mechanisms are in place. Every project that goes abroad, every opportunity foregone, has a cost in terms of growth, jobs and poverty reduction. The delay in getting a new land acquisition bill done has, perhaps more importantly, impacted crucial development work, and the creation of rural and urban infrastructure that has massive spillover effects on growth and investment.


So why is it that the rural development ministry has decided to further postpone the introduction of the Centre’s land acquisition bill? On Thursday, Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh announced the ministry would organise month-long “pre-legislative consultations” with various NGOs, states and political parties before it submitted the already prepared draft to the cabinet for approval. The last day of the monsoon session of Parliament is September 8; setting aside a month for consultation means the bill’s introduction will likely miss this session altogether. This is despite the fact that the UPA government, through the statements of several senior ministers, had already committed itself to introducing the bill in the monsoon session. The government cannot afford to be this cavalier with legislation of such importance.



Congress general secretary Rahul Gandhi, while touring several flashpoints in Uttar Pradesh where land acquisition disputes had broken into open violence, accepted that the Centre had been tardy with essential land legislation. “We will bring a good law, we are trying our best to pass it in the next session of Lok Sabha,” he had said then, blaming the Congress’s coalition partners for the delay. The coalition (read Mamata Banerjee) is no longer the problem; but it is worrying that it appears politics still is. All this while, state governments have been left to their own devices, compensating for the antiquated, colonial-era legislation with their individual packages. To have Parliament go yet another session without even starting the process of bringing legislative clarity to the issue indicates a strange order of priorities.

Stressed-out banks

The financial performance in the first quarter, of the few top public sector banks give room for concern. At least three top banks have seen their profits dip by around 25 to 30 per cent in the first quarter when compared to the previous year. A closer look at their results would also show that this is the outcome of a fall in the ‘net interest margin' (the difference between the average income earned on a rupee of loans and of deposits) for banks have been under pressure. Barring one or two exceptions, for most banks, NIMs have been falling and, in a few cases, quite steeply.
What is clear is that while interest rates have been on the upswing generally over the past year, pricing power is still not decisively in the hands of banks, thanks to competition. Banks have been forced to hike their deposit rates also in a bid to keep their customers from going elsewhere. And for the same reason, they have had to delay their lending rate hikes. That explains why NIMs have dropped. Despite the compression, however, for most banks, NIMs are still in the region of 2.7 per cent even now. Last year, the RBI Governor had asked banks to learn to live with a lesser NIM and offer better returns to depositors and more competitive rates for borrowers. That's perhaps happening now with some delay. It must be said here that Indian banks enjoy higher margins than those in other emerging markets, and can improve their efficiency without denting their profitability. A rise in the gross value of non-performing assets of many banks is the other area of concern. For some, if not all, they have grown by as much as 35 per cent over the past one year. Of course, in terms of causes, there are the usual suspects — the small and medium enterprises (SME) sector as well as agricultural defaults. But the restructuring of loans in the infrastructure sector is a pointer to the potential for further trouble in the days to come.
The markets expect at least one more hike before the end of this year. What this will do to borrowers who are already under stress can well be imagined. Banks have already seen some extra slippage in their non- performing assets after they migrated to system-based recognition of NPAs. As the process gets underway at various banks this year, there could be a little more deterioration. It's time for them to bring management focus to this problem and concentrate on recovery and upgradation/restructuring of viable accounts. The next quarter is likely to be a difficult one given the signs of an economic slowdown.

Lokpal bill and the Prime Minister

Anil Divan
The Indian citizenry is up in arms against corruption at the highest levels of government. Anna Hazare's movement has caught the people's imagination. The former President, A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, has pitched in and called upon the youth to start a mass movement against corruption under the banner “What can I give?” (The Hindu, June 27, 2011).
According to a CRISIL report (The Hindu, June 29, 2011), inflation has caused the Indian public to be squeezed to the extent of Rs. 2.3 lakh crores. According to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG), the estimate of loss to the exchequer owing to the 2G spectrum scam is Rs. 1.22 lakh crores.
That corruption is a disease consuming the body politic is a fear expressed by dignitaries in India over many years. As far back as 1979, Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer observed in a judgment in his inimitable style: “Fearless investigation is a ‘sine qua non' of exposure of delinquent ‘greats' and if the investigative agencies tremble to probe or make public the felonies of high office, white-collar offenders in the peaks may be unruffled by the law. An independent investigative agency to be set in motion by any responsible citizen is a desideratum.”
Mark the words: fearless investigation by an independent investigative agency against delinquent ‘greats'. A good Lokpal bill has to be nothing less.
It is in this context that this article addresses the issue of whether the Prime Minister should be brought under the ambit of an Ombudsman (Lokpal) and be subject to its scrutiny. It is important to observe that in most of the Lokpal bills, including the 2010 government draft (except the 1985 version), the Prime Minister is within the ambit of the Lokpal.
The Constitution
Under the Indian Constitution there is no provision to give immunity to the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers or Ministers. Under Article 361, immunity from criminal proceedings is conferred on the President and the Governor (formerly the Rajpramukh) only “during his term of office.”
So what is the principle behind such immunity being given? The line is clearly drawn. Constitutional heads who do not directly exercise executive powers are given immunity as heads of state. Active politicians such as Ministers, who cannot remain aloof from the hurly-burly of electoral and party politics, ethical or unethical, honest or corrupt, are not given any immunity. They are subject to penal laws and criminal liability.
The basic structure of the Constitution clearly denies immunity to the Prime Minister.
Internal Emergency
During the period of the Internal Emergency (1975-77), Indira Gandhi enjoyed dictatorial powers. She detained without trial prominent Opposition leaders and was supported by a captive and rump Parliament.
The Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Bill was moved in, and passed by, the Rajya Sabha in August 1975 and later it was to go before the Lok Sabha. The Bill was blacked out from the media and hence very few people knew about it. It never became law because it was not moved in the Lok Sabha.
The Bill sought to amend Article 361 by substituting sub-clause (2) thus: “(2) No criminal proceedings whatsoever, against or concerning a person who is or has been the President or the Prime Minister or the Governor of a State, shall lie in any court, or shall be instituted or continued in any court in respect of any act done by him, whether before he entered upon his office or during his term of office as President or Prime Minister or Governor of a State, as the case may be, and no process whatsoever including process for arrest or imprisonment shall issue from any court against such person in respect of any such act.”
The attempt to give life-time immunity from criminal proceedings for acts done during and even prior to assuming office, of the President, the Governor and additionally the Prime Minister, did not materialise.
Foreign jurisdictions
In Japan, Prime Minister Kakuei Tanaka (July 1972 to December 1974) was found guilty of bribery and sentenced. In Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was indicted in corruption scandals in August 2009. In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi enacted, through a pliant legislature, a law by which he shielded himself from prosecution. The Italian Constitutional Court recently invalidated crucial parts of that law, which may result in his trial being revived.
The following are some of the main arguments against bringing the Prime Minister under the Lokpal's scrutiny. The first one runs thus: “The simple answer is, if the Prime Minister is covered under ordinary law (the Prevention of Corruption Act), you don't need him covered under Lokpal.” This is a view that has been attributed to the former Chief Justice of India, J.S. Verma (Hindustan Times, June 27, 2011). Any misconduct by a Prime Minister can be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation: this view is that of Chief Minister Jayalalithaa (The Hindu, June 28, 2011). This objection concedes the principle that the Prime Minister is not immune from criminal liability and can be investigated, but argues and assumes that the Prevention of Corruption Act and the CBI present effective existing alternative procedures. Nothing could be farther from the truth and the ground realities.
What is the ground reality? First, the CBI, the premier anti-corruption investigative agency, is under the Department of Personnel and Training, which is controlled by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Secondly, the career prospects of CBI officers and other personnel are dependent on the political executive, and all officers are subject to transfer except the Director. Thus, the investigative arm is controlled by the ‘political suspects' themselves. Thirdly, the Single Directive, a secret administrative directive that was invalidated by the Supreme Court in the Jain hawala case in 1997 (Vineet Narain v. Union of India) has been legislatively revived. Consequently, under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, the CBI is disabled from starting an inquiry or investigation against Joint Secretary or higher level bureaucrats without the Central government's prior approval. Therefore, the Prevention of Corruption Act is a non-starter against Ministers and high-level bureaucrats who may act in concert. It is imperative that the CBI's anti-corruption wing be brought under the Lokpal and not under the PMO. This alone would meet the test of an independent and fearless investigative agency as enunciated by Justice Krishna Iyer.
Secondly, it is argued that if the Prime Minister is within its ambit, the Lokpal could be used by foreign powers to destabilise the government. Today, the checks on the executive government are the higher judiciary, which has actively intervened in the 2G spectrum scam and other scams; the CAG, whose reports against the functioning of the telecommunications sector triggered investigations into scams; the Election Commission headed by the Chief Election Commissioner, which conducted elections in West Bengal in the most efficient and orderly fashion. All these authorities could be undermined by a foreign power. Why should the Lokpal alone be the target of a foreign power? Why not the intelligence and defence services? Why not leaks from Cabinet Ministers and their offices — bugged or not?
Thirdly, it is argued that bringing the Prime Minister under the Lokpal's scrutiny would mean a parallel government being put in place. This objection is disingenuous. Do the Supreme Court and the higher judiciary constitute a parallel government? Is the CAG a parallel government? Is the CEC a parallel government? Is the CBI a parallel government? The answer is clear. These constitute checks and restraints on the political executive and the administration so that public funds are not misappropriated and constitutional democracy and citizen rights are not subverted. The Lokpal will be under the Constitution and subject to judicial review, and it is imperative that the anti-corruption wing of the CBI be brought under the Lokpal. There is no question of any parallel government. The Lokpal will be only a check on the corrupt activities of the Executive. If all checks and balances are to be regarded as the marks of a parallel government and therefore abolished, it will be a recipe for dictatorship.
William Shakespeare wrote: “There is a tide in the affairs of men, which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries.” There is a tide in the affairs of this country and there is a great opportunity to promote good governance through a powerful and independent Ombudsman. India's economic reforms, for which the Prime Minister deserves approbation, should not be derailed at the altar of scams and corruption. Will his leadership ride on the tide of fortune and take the country forward to greater heights?
(Anil Divan is a Senior Advocate, and president of the Bar Association of India.

A cruel joke on the nation

Prashant Bhushan
The Union Cabinet announced on July 28 that in order to honour the commitment it had given to Anna Hazare and the nation at large, it would table a Lokpal bill during the monsoon session of Parliament beginning on August 1. Though the exact contents of the bill as approved by the Cabinet is not known, its basic features as announced by various Ministers show that such a Lokpal as envisaged in the government's bill will not be able to tackle any significant case of corruption and will in fact be a cruel joke on the nation.
Looking at the major scams that have erupted in recent times, we find that the government's Lokpal, apart from being sarkari in the sense that it will be selected by a committee dominated by people from the government, would not be able to investigate them. Thus, it would not be able to investigate the Commonwealth Games scam, the Bellary mining scam or the Adarsh Society scam, since it would have no jurisdiction over State government officials. Similarly, it would not be able to investigate the Public Distribution System scam or the scams in the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, because it would have no jurisdiction over officials below Group A. For the same reason it would not be able to take up any of the corruption cases that plague the common people. It would not even be able to investigate the cash-for-votes scam, since that involves the acts of MPs in Parliament. It would also not be able to properly investigate the 2G spectrum scam, since it cannot call for papers from the Prime Minister's Office, which are relevant for a proper investigation.
Quite apart from the severely restricted nature of the sarkari Lokpal's mandate, the distinction drawn by the government's bill between the level of the officers to be investigated (with lower-level officials to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that is under the government, and higher-level officials by the Lokpal) would create enormous confusion about jurisdiction. Since one often does not know in advance the level of the officers who may be involved in a scam, and usually officials of all levels are involved, one would not know whether to lodge the complaint with the government's CBI or the sarkari Lokpal. If the CBI started an investigation into the Public Distribution System scam on the basis of the assumption that it involved junior officials, and then found that the money trail goes right up to the top, would the investigation then be transferred to the Lokpal? That would lead to duplication of investigation, apart from the very real possibility of the CBI having already ruined the investigation. That is why different investigative agencies are not designated to investigate offences depending on the identity of the culprits. Thus, normally there is one agency to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act irrespective of the status of the person involved. There may be a different agency to investigate separate offences under other laws, such as the Enforcement Directorate for offences under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, or the Income Tax Department for offences coming under the Income Tax Act. And will we allow corruption by junior officials to be dealt with by the same agencies that are today sleeping over it?
On UNCAC lines
The Jan Lokpal bill had been framed on the lines suggested by the U.N. Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which requires all countries to establish independent anti-corruption agencies which would have the jurisdiction to investigate all public officials. The civil society group has therefore tried to set up a comprehensive, independent, empowered but fully accountable Jan Lokpal which would have an adequate investigative machinery under its control (the anti-corruption wing of the CBI to begin with, which would be brought under the administrative and supervisory control of the Jan Lokpal) and would be able to investigate all Central public servants for corruption. The Jan Lokpal bill also provided for Lokayuktas in the States that would be similarly empowered to investigate State public servants. Moreover, the Jan Lokpal would be selected by a broad-based selection committee that would be largely independent of the government, to avoid the kind of farce that has been witnessed in the selection of the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC).
What we have in the government's bill is an agency that would be essentially selected by the government (five of the nine members of the selection committee would be government nominees), would have jurisdiction over less than half a per cent of the public servants, and would be additionally crippled by the fact of not being able to investigate the Prime Minister, judges or MPs for corruption connected with their acts in Parliament. They say that nine members of the Lokpal cannot handle complaints against 40 lakh Central public servants. But that would be done by the investigating machinery supervised by the Lokpal. It has been estimated that on a ratio of one Lokpal official for every 200 public servants, the Lokpal would have a total of about 20,000 officials working under it. That is a medium-sized department. The Delhi Police alone has 80,000 officials.
On the Prime Minister, judiciary
Some of the provisions of the government's proposal, such as granting immunity from investigation to the Prime Minister, show illiteracy about the basic features of the Constitution. In 1975, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the Constitution (39th Amendment) Act that sought to put the election of the Prime Minister above challenge, on the ground that such a provision would violate the basic structure of the Constitution. A provision to grant immunity from investigation and prosecution to the Prime Minister would similarly fall foul of several basic features of the Constitution. In no civilised country is the head of the government immune from corruption investigation. Even in India he or she has not been immune. The CBI can, and occasionally under court directions has, investigated the Prime Minister (as in the case involving some leaders of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha). The problem is that the CBI is under the Prime Minister himself and therefore cannot conduct a credible investigation of the Prime Minister. That was the entire rationale for an independent Lokpal — to free the agency investigating corruption from the administrative control of the very people that it may seek to investigate. This is precisely what the UNCAC requires.
Similarly, the rationale for the government's proposal to remove the judiciary from the Lokpal's ambit suffers also from conceptual confusion. They say that bringing the judiciary within the investigative ambit of the Lokpal would compromise the independence of the judiciary. The judiciary needs to be independent of the government. Normally the police or the CBI can investigate judges for corruption. However, the Supreme Court in Veeraswami's case directed that since the police are under the government, which can be used by the government to harass judges by way of investigation, the prior written permission of the Chief Justice of India would be required for such investigation. This, despite the fact there had been no instance of any judge being harassed in such a manner, since the judiciary can always use its power of judicial review to quash any mala fide investigation.
However, if the investigation of judges would be done by a Lokpal that would be independent of the government (with the further safeguard in the Jan Lokpal bill that a bench of seven members of the Lokpal would grant permission for investigation or prosecution of judges), the whole rationale for the permission of the Chief Justice disappears. We have seen that in the past such permissions have often been denied even in deserving cases for reasons of conflict of interest. Yet the government's bill seeks to exempt judicial corruption from being investigated by an independent Lokpal, and seeks to retain the present system of investigation by a government-controlled agency after obtaining permission from the Chief Justice of India.
India is today plagued by corruption of such enormous breadth and depth and running across all public authorities that it is now at serious risk of becoming a banana republic and a mafia state. It was in recognition of this alarming reality, demanding a comprehensive, independent, empowered though accountable anti-corruption authority, that Anna Hazare went on an indefinite fast on April 5, 2011.
After seeing the extent of public support for this demand, the government agreed to a joint drafting committee for the Lokpal bill. Refusing to meet most of the demands of the civil society group in the Jan Lokpal bill, the government has now come out with its bill, which will not succeed in tackling even one per cent of India's corruption.
All that the bill will do is to create an illusion that the government has acceded to the public demand for an independent anti-corruption agency. But the government will have to pay a heavy price for again having underestimated the ability of the people to see through such a charade. The long suffering people have had enough. Come August 16, they will get a glimpse of public anger.
(Prashant Bhushan is a Senior Advocate and member of the civil society team that drafted the Jan Lokpal Bill.)

New dirty bomb detection system

The New York Police Department (NYPD) is testing a ground-breaking counter-terror technology expected to dramatically increase its ability to detect and thwart a potential radiation attack, officials said on July 28.
The technology will allow a command centre in lower Manhattan to monitor 2,000 mobile radiation detectors carried by officers each day around the city.
The detectors will send a wireless, real-time alert if there's a reading signalling a dirty bomb threat.
A dirty bomb, intended to spread panic by using a small explosive to create a radioactive cloud in urban settings, has never been discovered or detonated in a U.S. terror plot.
But law enforcement considers dirty bombs a serious threat because they're easy to build and because of intelligence that foreign terrorists want to use them against American cities. The radiation detection system is being developed as part of a $200 million lower Manhattan security initiative. Police say the overall plan was inspired by the so-called “ring of steel” encircling the business district in London but is broader in scope and sophistication. The initiative will rely largely on 3,000 closed-circuit security cameras carpeting the roughly 1.7 square miles (4.4 sq. km) south of Canal Street, the subway system and parts of midtown Manhattan.
So far, about 1,800 cameras are up and running, with the rest expected to come on line by the end of the year.
The NYPD is using a single, high-bandwidth fibre optic network to connect all its cameras to a central computer system. It's also pioneering “video analytic” computer software designed to detect threats, like unattended bags, and retrieve stored images based on descriptions of terror or other criminal suspects. — AP