3 ms·
Adding to the above, when we talk about monitoring people, most people have in mind a model that requires O(log n) monitors; monitoring 300 people is like keepi
by antics 15y ago
Adding to the above, when we talk about monitoring people, most people have in mind a model that requires O(log n) monitors; monitoring 300 people is like keeping 300 bookmarks in a book, as it takes only a few people to monitor those 300 bookmarks. To the government, the model is O(n). They're not maintaining 300 bookmarks, they're reading 300 pages simultaneously.
The reason is that people are the asymptotic bottleneck. If computers totally and automatically understood everything, then the dominating term would be compute time. But it's not. The dominating term is clearly people, who must ultimately review the truly promising information. Maybe the compute resources make this linear relationship hold over lower constants, but it is still definitely linear. And any technological advantage is unfortunately shortchanged by the constant factor of red tape.
Ex-Googlers like Ron here no doubt have a different view on what can/should be done to monitor people, but I argue that this is irrelevant to the government. And even if they agreed with them in principle, there's enough red tape that a system like what they have in mind would just never be realistic.
- burgerbrain 15y agoIn these sorts of situations, it is almost always prudent to overestimate your enemies capabilities. If you're going to be surprised, it's best for it to be pleasant.
- Retric 15y agoThe model is not actively watching everyone it's flagging people for additional screening. It's one thing to know walking into an airport is going to be a pain, it's quite another when driving down the highway your license plate is tagged and someone pulls you over. The security apparatus get's to make it's numbers and occasionally even pick something up, but for those false positives out there there is little recourse but leave the country.
- lisper 15y ago> The dominating term is clearly people Now who has the burden of proof? > who must ultimately review the truly promising information. You could make the same argument for e.g. the stock market. Program trading can never become a dominant force in the market because humans must ultimately make all the decisions (like what programs to run). The flaw in this reasoning should be self-evident. > this is irrelevant to the government [because of] red tape You put too much faith in red tape. You may not have noticed, but since 9/11 there has arisen a shadow government that is not subject to normal bureaucratic constraints, or indeed even to the rule of law. See e.g. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/ http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/