4 ms·

> using “predictive pattern-matching,” to analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior Here we are again : authoritarianism being rationalized.

chmike 14y ago
This has nothing to do with authoritarism. It is method to detect behaviour not mathching "normal" pattern. This is used as a heuristic to detect suspicious behavior.
- oelmekki 14y ago
  Thanks for confirming my point.
- dalke 14y ago
  An issue is that they are only an _approximate_ heuristic. What is the likelihood that an unusual behavior is suspicious? The level of false negatives is, as this article points out, very high. That's because it's essentially impossible to define "normal" behavior. "Normal" behavior doesn't include jumping off a bridge. But I and friends have, as a lark. Is that then suspicious? Or from the article, normal people don't buy explosive chemicals and a timer in the same week ... except if the person's teen wants the chemicals for a science experiment and the timer replaces the broken one for the lawn irrigation system. There are a huge number of these low-probability events, and it overwhelms the signal of any truly suspicions behavior. Should the authorities investigate all of these? Some of these? What sets the limit? The lack of funding or the law? "Authoritarianism" comes into play because the authorities do come in and investigate. That's their mandate. And innocent citizens are compelled to submit to the investigation, or at the least get the clear signal that the government thinks they are suspicious. Some will stop doing legal things (like traveling by air) in order to not be subject to increased scrutiny by the authorities. This might be low-level authoritarianism, but it still is a higher level of submission to authority than I would like. There's always going to be some false positives, where innocent citizens are investigated, accused, and even put into prison, so it's not like I'm saying that we can have a non-authoritarian government. But do say that this has nothing to do with authoritarianism is only focusing on the collection of the data, and not the likelihood that someone in authority will do something with it.
sliverstorm 14y ago
Why is it that any kind of attempts to predict future criminal activities is always labeled "1984"? It seems to me that so long as you don't take it further than "being ready", done right it could be a good thing.
- Vivtek 14y ago
  "Done right". There's your problem. Done right, Marxism is a good thing. Done right, a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. But we are, in fact, dealing in sloppy reality, where many things - by their very nature - cannot be done right. No matter how hard we try, or how earnestly we believe in fairies, these things will not be done right. They will inevitably devolve into tyranny.
  - altcognito 14y ago
    In fact, it's not even the point. Invasion of privacy is by definition, done wrong. Are we willing to give up all of our privacy to prevent a very, very small number of incidents.
    - Vivtek 14y ago
      No, it actually is the point, because it's perfectly OK for Santa Claus to know whether you've been bad or good - Santa Claus is inherently trustworthy and won't tell your boss, deny you travel privileges, sell your company short, or give bad rich kids presents instead of coal. So the day I see a reindeer with a glowing nose landing on my roof, I will consider allowing the elves to collect all the information they want, as long as the storage center is at the North Pole. In the meantime, invasion of privacy will continue to be done wrong.
  - jivatmanx 14y ago
    "Done Right" means that he wants to provide a default assumption of trust for government actions. However, the bill of rights is based upon a default distrust, and he may want to research why that was the case.
ibejoeb 14y ago
Speaking of: > some information "might seem more relevant later," says Mr. Joel So, hindsight is 20/20, you say?

chmike 14y ago

This has nothing to do with authoritarism. It is method to detect behaviour not mathching "normal" pattern. This is used as a heuristic to detect suspicious behavior.

oelmekki 14y ago
Thanks for confirming my point.
dalke 14y ago
An issue is that they are only an _approximate_ heuristic. What is the likelihood that an unusual behavior is suspicious? The level of false negatives is, as this article points out, very high. That's because it's essentially impossible to define "normal" behavior. "Normal" behavior doesn't include jumping off a bridge. But I and friends have, as a lark. Is that then suspicious? Or from the article, normal people don't buy explosive chemicals and a timer in the same week ... except if the person's teen wants the chemicals for a science experiment and the timer replaces the broken one for the lawn irrigation system. There are a huge number of these low-probability events, and it overwhelms the signal of any truly suspicions behavior. Should the authorities investigate all of these? Some of these? What sets the limit? The lack of funding or the law? "Authoritarianism" comes into play because the authorities do come in and investigate. That's their mandate. And innocent citizens are compelled to submit to the investigation, or at the least get the clear signal that the government thinks they are suspicious. Some will stop doing legal things (like traveling by air) in order to not be subject to increased scrutiny by the authorities. This might be low-level authoritarianism, but it still is a higher level of submission to authority than I would like. There's always going to be some false positives, where innocent citizens are investigated, accused, and even put into prison, so it's not like I'm saying that we can have a non-authoritarian government. But do say that this has nothing to do with authoritarianism is only focusing on the collection of the data, and not the likelihood that someone in authority will do something with it.

sliverstorm 14y ago

Why is it that any kind of attempts to predict future criminal activities is always labeled "1984"? It seems to me that so long as you don't take it further than "being ready", done right it could be a good thing.

Vivtek 14y ago
"Done right". There's your problem. Done right, Marxism is a good thing. Done right, a dictatorship is the most efficient form of government. But we are, in fact, dealing in sloppy reality, where many things - by their very nature - cannot be done right. No matter how hard we try, or how earnestly we believe in fairies, these things will not be done right. They will inevitably devolve into tyranny.
- altcognito 14y ago
  In fact, it's not even the point. Invasion of privacy is by definition, done wrong. Are we willing to give up all of our privacy to prevent a very, very small number of incidents.
  - Vivtek 14y ago
    No, it actually is the point, because it's perfectly OK for Santa Claus to know whether you've been bad or good - Santa Claus is inherently trustworthy and won't tell your boss, deny you travel privileges, sell your company short, or give bad rich kids presents instead of coal. So the day I see a reindeer with a glowing nose landing on my roof, I will consider allowing the elves to collect all the information they want, as long as the storage center is at the North Pole. In the meantime, invasion of privacy will continue to be done wrong.
- jivatmanx 14y ago
  "Done Right" means that he wants to provide a default assumption of trust for government actions. However, the bill of rights is based upon a default distrust, and he may want to research why that was the case.

ibejoeb 14y ago

Speaking of: > some information "might seem more relevant later," says Mr. Joel So, hindsight is 20/20, you say?