4 ms·

I'm a little sceptical. How do they know precisely what was used to identify them and what words triggered this "data mesh"? I'm not completely au fait with c

I'm a little sceptical. How do they know precisely what was used to identify them and what words triggered this "data mesh"? I'm not completely au fait with counter-terrorism policing, but they don't usually disclose the entirety of the evidence against you. How did they know they were under surveillance etc? The notion that they were subject to surveillance and arrested based on using seven words is a little far-fetched to me. Surveillance is pretty damn expensive, and I'm pretty confident they weren't the only people to use those words. Again, not necessarily saying they're lying, but I'd love to know where the information comes from.

Argorak 12y ago
There was a lawsuit, she's simply talking about what was in the investigative files.
- crimsoneer 12y ago
  Yeah, I just suspect there's more to it than what's stated in the article. Surveilling people is really expensive, I doubt they did it just because he'd written an essay with specific words in it.
  - Argorak 12y ago
    The thing is that he didn't do much more than writing the article. He's a sociologist and as such writes about topics that do not necessarily match his opinions. The files didn't give many more reasons beyond that, the prosecution was widely criticised as excessive. Given the courtness, the quote is well picked. The point is that just putting those words our seems to be enough for full surveillance.
  - izacus 12y ago
    Even though Snowden leaks pretty much show that?
    - mpyne 12y ago
      They don't "pretty much show active surveillance on individuals". Even the NSA doesn't have the human intelligence analyst bandwidth for that. The Snowden leaks show pretty expansive collection of data that could be examined by analysts, along with tools to make the analysis of that data even easier, but unless I've missed one there's nothing in the leaks demonstrating "automated SWATting of a house".
      - harry8 12y ago
        And you think the analyst who took the results of a regression analysis on 7 words has a deep theoretical and practical understanding of the statistical models used and their weaknesses. Ok. It's possible. Would you bet your life on it? How about other people's lives on it? It's an easier bet to make but be careful that the stakes are as limited as you think they are, huh?
        mpyne 12y ago
        I think it's far more likely that the analyst has what we used to call "common sense" than they that have a master's degree in statistics, I'll admit. Of course Turing and his compatriots at Bletchley Park managed to win the war without all of them having a degree in stats, so maybe it's not actually the critical underpinning of the use of intelligence that you think it is. Likewise since the NSA doesn't actually have LE working for it they'd have to pass off the juicy bits to some Federal law enforcement agency and convince some non-zero subset of that agency in order to "auto-SWAT" a house. So yes, this is actually among the easier of bets I'll ever have to make. More difficult ones would involve policy on what should be a crime, what taxes should be, and how the foreign policy of the U.S. should be directed.
        harry8 12y ago
        Turing and his compatriots weren't using statistical models of which they had no understanding to order raids in peace time. Turing, yeah, he probably understood stats being a codebreaker and all. Not sure what you think codebreaking is. But I guess the idea that Turing would know his stats isn't common sense, common sense is usually prejudice writ large anyway. Suggesting otherwise as a justification for raiding someone based on a stat analysis of an academic paper hinging on 7 words used is just so silly I can scarcely credit it. Factual underpinning is ridiculous then build fallacies of logic built on that. Well done. Do you volunteer at being an apologist? What would be so bad that you wouldn't be able to make excuses for it. Seriously?
  - chiph 12y ago
    > Surveilling people is really expensive, Not any more. Now it's just a matter of looking them up in a search engine. Whether public (Google) or secret government (ICREACH).
    - bigiain 12y ago
      Yeah, there's no way they'd spend the billions of dollars it's cost to surveil everybody "just in case", then use stupid keyword searches to target individuals... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprints-of-nsa-data-center-in-utah-suggest-its-storage-capacity-is-less-impressive-than-thought/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprint...
  - PavlovsCat 12y ago
    Yeah, it's expensive. But it's the tax payers that pay for it, not the people who sell the equipment or training, nor the people who are payed by the tax payer to use said equipment and training against them.
ryandrake 12y ago
I'm also a little skeptical that those words _triggered_ an investigation (if so, it would be pretty scary/amazing). But I have no doubt that once you're the target of a "terrorist" investigation, and the authorities are convinced you're the bad guy, they will find something and it will be enough to arrest/disappear you. Or as someone put it long before I was born, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
na85 12y ago
Hello, newly-registered US cyber command account.

Argorak 12y ago

There was a lawsuit, she's simply talking about what was in the investigative files.

crimsoneer 12y ago
Yeah, I just suspect there's more to it than what's stated in the article. Surveilling people is really expensive, I doubt they did it just because he'd written an essay with specific words in it.
- Argorak 12y ago
  The thing is that he didn't do much more than writing the article. He's a sociologist and as such writes about topics that do not necessarily match his opinions. The files didn't give many more reasons beyond that, the prosecution was widely criticised as excessive. Given the courtness, the quote is well picked. The point is that just putting those words our seems to be enough for full surveillance.
- izacus 12y ago
  Even though Snowden leaks pretty much show that?
  - mpyne 12y ago
    They don't "pretty much show active surveillance on individuals". Even the NSA doesn't have the human intelligence analyst bandwidth for that. The Snowden leaks show pretty expansive collection of data that could be examined by analysts, along with tools to make the analysis of that data even easier, but unless I've missed one there's nothing in the leaks demonstrating "automated SWATting of a house".
    - harry8 12y ago
      And you think the analyst who took the results of a regression analysis on 7 words has a deep theoretical and practical understanding of the statistical models used and their weaknesses. Ok. It's possible. Would you bet your life on it? How about other people's lives on it? It's an easier bet to make but be careful that the stakes are as limited as you think they are, huh?
      - mpyne 12y ago
        I think it's far more likely that the analyst has what we used to call "common sense" than they that have a master's degree in statistics, I'll admit. Of course Turing and his compatriots at Bletchley Park managed to win the war without all of them having a degree in stats, so maybe it's not actually the critical underpinning of the use of intelligence that you think it is. Likewise since the NSA doesn't actually have LE working for it they'd have to pass off the juicy bits to some Federal law enforcement agency and convince some non-zero subset of that agency in order to "auto-SWAT" a house. So yes, this is actually among the easier of bets I'll ever have to make. More difficult ones would involve policy on what should be a crime, what taxes should be, and how the foreign policy of the U.S. should be directed.
        harry8 12y ago
        Turing and his compatriots weren't using statistical models of which they had no understanding to order raids in peace time. Turing, yeah, he probably understood stats being a codebreaker and all. Not sure what you think codebreaking is. But I guess the idea that Turing would know his stats isn't common sense, common sense is usually prejudice writ large anyway. Suggesting otherwise as a justification for raiding someone based on a stat analysis of an academic paper hinging on 7 words used is just so silly I can scarcely credit it. Factual underpinning is ridiculous then build fallacies of logic built on that. Well done. Do you volunteer at being an apologist? What would be so bad that you wouldn't be able to make excuses for it. Seriously?
- chiph 12y ago
  > Surveilling people is really expensive, Not any more. Now it's just a matter of looking them up in a search engine. Whether public (Google) or secret government (ICREACH).
  - bigiain 12y ago
    Yeah, there's no way they'd spend the billions of dollars it's cost to surveil everybody "just in case", then use stupid keyword searches to target individuals... http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprints-of-nsa-data-center-in-utah-suggest-its-storage-capacity-is-less-impressive-than-thought/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/07/24/blueprint...
- PavlovsCat 12y ago
  Yeah, it's expensive. But it's the tax payers that pay for it, not the people who sell the equipment or training, nor the people who are payed by the tax payer to use said equipment and training against them.

ryandrake 12y ago

I'm also a little skeptical that those words _triggered_ an investigation (if so, it would be pretty scary/amazing). But I have no doubt that once you're the target of a "terrorist" investigation, and the authorities are convinced you're the bad guy, they will find something and it will be enough to arrest/disappear you. Or as someone put it long before I was born, "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."

na85 12y ago

Hello, newly-registered US cyber command account.