4 ms·

UCLA Researchers Predicted Bin Laden's Hideout Location to Within 130 miles

10 points by dr_ 15y ago

shantanubala 15y ago
They were within 130 miles, which is fairly narrow if you consider all of Pakistan. But how much of that was actually due to the validity of their research methods and how much of that was simply right-place right-time? How much of this article was politicized? All we know is that they used some analysis of some publicly available data and were within 130 miles. I'd like a little more detail before I actually make any judgments. Just because the general public thinks Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave doesn't mean the CIA was thinking the same thing. The article has some slant to make it seem as though our government was ineffective and slow at capturing Bin Laden and predicting where he would be, but let's ask a few more questions: if we sent troops to search every building in a 130-mile radius, Bin Laden would escape easily, wouldn't he? Even if we know within 5 square miles, he could escape. We need to know the exact building, otherwise it would be worthless. We sent a team of Navy Seals with helicopters. We invaded a sovereign country without a declaration of war. We violated international law. If we do that, we better be damn sure beyond just a 130-mile radius. EDIT: They predicted with an "88.9% probability" that he would be within 130 miles of where he was found. That in an of itself is absolutely useless. Here's what our government actually did: they found the pseudonym of a guy who worked as a courier who had ties to Al Quada, found his real name, found out where he was going, found ties to Bin Laden, and found an exact address. Over years. We can't ask the Pakistani government for help, because Bin Laden will escape again. We can't search based on a 88.9% chance within a 130-mile radius. This wasn't a very good article, but I definitely would like to learn more about the actual research.
- kwis 15y ago
  Here's the complete paper: http://web.mit.edu/mitir/2009/online/finding-bin-laden.pdf http://web.mit.edu/mitir/2009/online/finding-bin-laden.pdf
d0ne 15y ago
Their approach and results are equally interesting. Too bad their is a lot more to 'actionable intelligence' than actual intelligence. I'm fairly certain there were rooms full of people at the CIA, NSA and JOC screaming "he's chilling in Pakistan with AC and and a chef!" for years now. Problem being, there was one room at the White House where a much smaller group of people were discussing the diplomatic ramifications of the levels of 'actionable' substances to each bloodcurdling scream...
lotusleaf1987 15y ago
I submitted this yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2511034 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2511034 Glad to see it's getting attention though, regardless. To me the interesting thing was that they did this two years ago...
DavidSJ 15y ago
They didn't predict that he would be in a 130 mile radius which included the place he actually was. They predicted that he would be somewhere else, which happened to be 130 miles away. So they were wrong.
DavidSJ 15y ago
In other news, someone predicted correctly yesterday which stocks you should have bought today.

10 points by dr_ 15y ago

They were within 130 miles, which is fairly narrow if you consider all of Pakistan. But how much of that was actually due to the validity of their research methods and how much of that was simply right-place right-time? How much of this article was politicized? All we know is that they used some analysis of some publicly available data and were within 130 miles. I'd like a little more detail before I actually make any judgments. Just because the general public thinks Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave doesn't mean the CIA was thinking the same thing. The article has some slant to make it seem as though our government was ineffective and slow at capturing Bin Laden and predicting where he would be, but let's ask a few more questions: if we sent troops to search every building in a 130-mile radius, Bin Laden would escape easily, wouldn't he? Even if we know within 5 square miles, he could escape. We need to know the exact building, otherwise it would be worthless. We sent a team of Navy Seals with helicopters. We invaded a sovereign country without a declaration of war. We violated international law. If we do that, we better be damn sure beyond just a 130-mile radius. EDIT: They predicted with an "88.9% probability" that he would be within 130 miles of where he was found. That in an of itself is absolutely useless. Here's what our government actually did: they found the pseudonym of a guy who worked as a courier who had ties to Al Quada, found his real name, found out where he was going, found ties to Bin Laden, and found an exact address. Over years. We can't ask the Pakistani government for help, because Bin Laden will escape again. We can't search based on a 88.9% chance within a 130-mile radius. This wasn't a very good article, but I definitely would like to learn more about the actual research.

kwis 15y ago
Here's the complete paper: http://web.mit.edu/mitir/2009/online/finding-bin-laden.pdf http://web.mit.edu/mitir/2009/online/finding-bin-laden.pdf

d0ne 15y ago

Their approach and results are equally interesting. Too bad their is a lot more to 'actionable intelligence' than actual intelligence. I'm fairly certain there were rooms full of people at the CIA, NSA and JOC screaming "he's chilling in Pakistan with AC and and a chef!" for years now. Problem being, there was one room at the White House where a much smaller group of people were discussing the diplomatic ramifications of the levels of 'actionable' substances to each bloodcurdling scream...

lotusleaf1987 15y ago

I submitted this yesterday: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2511034 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2511034 Glad to see it's getting attention though, regardless. To me the interesting thing was that they did this two years ago...

DavidSJ 15y ago

They didn't predict that he would be in a 130 mile radius which included the place he actually was. They predicted that he would be somewhere else, which happened to be 130 miles away. So they were wrong.

DavidSJ 15y ago

In other news, someone predicted correctly yesterday which stocks you should have bought today.