3 ms·

There's nothing indicating that any of those factors by itself would make you a person of interest. And I'd guess the FBI would be a really bad service if "use

There's nothing indicating that any of those factors by itself would make you a person of interest. And I'd guess the FBI would be a really bad service if "uses encryption" or "camping" by itself would be considered as a strong signal. The noise would be too big. Now talk about someone who has a history of violence, takes long camping trips with a large arsenal, suddenly dropped all non-encrypted means of communication and is obsessed about books on chemical warfare and terrorist attacks. If it were your call, would you dedicate attention to that person?

arebop 10y ago
The penalty for misclassifications is higher for false negatives than false positives. In fact, what happens if the FBI exhausts its budget investigating the positives from this classifier? Do they try to improve the classifier accuracy or do they seek a larger budget along with the prestige of playing a bigger role in the War on Terrorism?
Sophistifunk 10y ago
More importantly, it's probably used to screen out people who don't belong. You can be damn sure anybody who is an actual terrorist uses encryption. Most harmless religious camping enthusiasts do not.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Exactly, think bloom filter. Used to rule out.
- owenversteeg 10y ago
  Actually, a surprisingly large amount of terrorists do not use encryption (or at least not on purpose.) For a recent example, after news media widely reported that the Paris attackers used encryption, it turned out that they actually did not [0], and instead simply used common messaging apps. That didn't stop the FBI from using the attacks to denounce encryption, of course. In reality, using encryption isn't going to help you all that much if a government entity thinks you're suspicious. It may make it marginally harder for them to be suspicious of you, but that's about it. If they want something, and 'encryption' is in the way, 99.9% of the time they have a way around it. A very relevant, and very hilarious article on this: [1] [0] http://bgr.com/2016/03/22/paris-attacks-iphone-encryption/ http://bgr.com/2016/03/22/paris-attacks-iphone-encryption/ [1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf
zeroer 10y ago
I don't think camping fits. Take out camping and you get a person with a history of violence, a large arsenal, obsessed with terrorist books. Still pretty scary. Technically speaking I really doubt interest in camping is any higher amongst terrorists than the population.
- ucaetano 10y ago
  The actual wording is: Has the subject participated in activities that simulate military or operational environments? So motorhome and marshmallows with your family at Big Bear Happy Camp probably wouldn't count, unless you're planning to kill everyone by making them eat s'mores until their blood sugar spikes.

arebop 10y ago

The penalty for misclassifications is higher for false negatives than false positives. In fact, what happens if the FBI exhausts its budget investigating the positives from this classifier? Do they try to improve the classifier accuracy or do they seek a larger budget along with the prestige of playing a bigger role in the War on Terrorism?

Sophistifunk 10y ago

More importantly, it's probably used to screen out people who don't belong. You can be damn sure anybody who is an actual terrorist uses encryption. Most harmless religious camping enthusiasts do not.

Godel_unicode 10y ago
Exactly, think bloom filter. Used to rule out.
owenversteeg 10y ago
Actually, a surprisingly large amount of terrorists do not use encryption (or at least not on purpose.) For a recent example, after news media widely reported that the Paris attackers used encryption, it turned out that they actually did not [0], and instead simply used common messaging apps. That didn't stop the FBI from using the attacks to denounce encryption, of course. In reality, using encryption isn't going to help you all that much if a government entity thinks you're suspicious. It may make it marginally harder for them to be suspicious of you, but that's about it. If they want something, and 'encryption' is in the way, 99.9% of the time they have a way around it. A very relevant, and very hilarious article on this: [1] [0] http://bgr.com/2016/03/22/paris-attacks-iphone-encryption/ http://bgr.com/2016/03/22/paris-attacks-iphone-encryption/ [1] https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf https://www.usenix.org/system/files/1401_08-12_mickens.pdf

zeroer 10y ago

I don't think camping fits. Take out camping and you get a person with a history of violence, a large arsenal, obsessed with terrorist books. Still pretty scary. Technically speaking I really doubt interest in camping is any higher amongst terrorists than the population.

ucaetano 10y ago
The actual wording is: Has the subject participated in activities that simulate military or operational environments? So motorhome and marshmallows with your family at Big Bear Happy Camp probably wouldn't count, unless you're planning to kill everyone by making them eat s'mores until their blood sugar spikes.