Bruce Schneider has an interesting take on why data mining in the name of homeland security is a baaaad idea:
I have an idea. Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad - one of the accused D.C. snipers - both served in the military. I think we need to put all U.S. ex-servicemen on a special watch list, because they obviously could be terrorists. I think we should flag them for "special screening" when they fly and think twice before allowing them to take scuba-diving lessons.
What do you think of my idea? I hope you're appalled, incensed and angry that I question the honesty and integrity of our military personnel based on the actions of just two people. That's exactly the right reaction. It's no different whether I suspect people based on military service, race, ethnicity, reading choices, scuba-diving ability or whether they're flying one way or round trip. It's profiling. It doesn't catch the few bad guys, and it causes undue hardship on the many good guys who are erroneously and repeatedly singled out. Security is always a trade-off, and in this case of "data mining" the trade-off is a lousy one.
This reminds me of an ancient logical fallacy:
Socrates was a man.
Socrates was gay.
Ergo, all men are gay.
(A more sophisticated proof by mathematical induction that all men are gay is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Security Syllogism
grantm on 2003-10-22T20:28:54
On a related note: Rodger's Security Syllogism
_________
PS: I think you meant Bruce Schneier (no 'd').
another example...
bart on 2003-10-22T21:00:37
By coincidence,
this article was posted today. It would look like the typical child porn picture files collector is a white male who works in the computer industry...
Do you feel focused on, yet?
Re:another example...
ziggy on 2003-10-22T22:33:46
So, when did Pete Townshend become a Javahacker?
Wrong name
vsergu on 2003-10-22T21:15:55
For the sake of correctness, the author's name is Bruce Schneier (no "d").
Re:Wrong name
ziggy on 2003-10-22T22:31:59
Wow. I've been mispronouncing the man's name since, well, forever.
Thanks!
Re:Wrong name
vsergu on 2003-10-22T23:26:22
It's funny how easy it is to see what one expects to see rather than what's there.
Re:Wrong name
delegatrix on 2003-10-22T23:45:36
Yeah, I still think it's Metzler. Sorry, Kevin!
Profiling
pudge on 2003-10-29T22:39:01
t's no different whether I suspect people based on military service, race, ethnicity, reading choices, scuba-diving ability or whether they're flying one way or round trip. It's profiling. It bothers me when people use a label and expect us to think it is self-evidently negative. Yes, it is profiling. Profiling has been a useful and in some cases necessary tool of law enforcement since before there was this homeland to keep secure. Simply calling it profiling doesn't make it
... well, anything in particular.
It doesn't catch the few bad guys, and it causes undue hardship on the many good guys who are erroneously and repeatedly singled out. Security is always a trade-off, and in this case of "data mining" the trade-off is a lousy one. This is what really matters: is the profiling doing what it is supposed to do? Is it useful toward the end of catching the bad guys? And how does it balance against our liberty?
"Data Mining"? ...or not?
Predictor on 2003-12-28T16:25:43
I agree that putting all military servicepeople on a "watch" list because of the actions of two of their company is a bad idea. I don't agree, though, that it is "data mining". Any competent analyst would look at this "analysis" and say, "Two observations out of hundreds of thousands? That proabbility is pretty close to zero! Don't even get me started on the level of statistical significance..."
This is a straw-man argument, plain and simple. There are good arguments for and against (real) data mining by the goverment, but this is not one of them.
-Predictor
http://will.dwinnell.com
