Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Terrorist Data Mining Doesn't Work Very Well

Posted by kdawson on from the could-have-told-you-and-did dept.

Presto Vivace and others sent us this CNet report on a just-released NRC report coming to the conclusion, which will surprise no one here, that data mining doesn't work very well. It's all those darn false positives. The submitter adds, "Any chance we could go back to probable cause?" "A report scheduled to be released on Tuesday by the National Research Council, which has been years in the making, concludes that automated identification of terrorists through data mining or any other mechanism 'is neither feasible as an objective nor desirable as a goal of technology development efforts.' Inevitable false positives will result in 'ordinary, law-abiding citizens and businesses' being incorrectly flagged as suspects. The whopping 352-page report, called 'Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists,' amounts to [be] at least a partial repudiation of the Defense Department's controversial data-mining program called Total Information Awareness, which was limited by Congress in 2003."

4 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Profiles also work in reverse by davidwr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As any Cold War spy can tell you, if you "fit the profile" of a normal law-abiding person with just enough "off-perfect" things in your life so you don't seem "too perfect," it's much easier to blend in.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Profiles also work in reverse by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Funny

      For example, never ever have 2.1 kids. It's suspiciously normal. Go with 2, maybe 3, to blend in.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  2. I'd run on that platform. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would seriously consider voting for either one that came forward and promised to cut TSA's authority and streamline the process, getting back to only those people who are basically confirmed problems being on the list, no matter what their views might be on Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, or offshore drilling.

    Vote for me.

    I'd take their "no fly" list and identify every single person on it who was a legitimate threat and either have them under 24 hour surveillance or arrested.

    The mere concept of a list of names of people who are too "dangerous" to let fly ... but not dangerous enough to track ... that just fucking stupid.

    Think about how many people could be killed in the airport terminal itself WITHOUT getting on a plane ... say during the Thanksgiving or Christmas rushes there.

    What idiot would let the people on that list (if they were really a threat) into a terminal? Wouldn't you expect them to STOP them BEFORE they get into a position to do that kind of damage?

  3. Re:There's a bigger problem with that. by Duradin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Reminds me of a bit from Discworld.

    To summarize, Ankh-Morpork was over run by rats. The obvious solution was to put a bounty on rats, payable per tail. Soon, the rat infestation was under control but the number of tails being brought in kept increasing.

    The Patrician's solution: tax the rat farms.