Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Schneier: Why Collecting More Data Doesn't Increase Safety
Jeremiah Cornelius writes "Bruce Schneier, security expert (and rational voice in the wilderness), explains in an editorial on CNN why 'Connecting the Dots' is a 'Hindsight Bias.' In heeding calls to increase the amount of surveillance data gathered and shared, agencies like the FBI have impaired their ability to discover actual threats, while guaranteeing erosion of personal and civil freedom. 'Piling more data onto the mix makes it harder, not easier. The best way to think of it is a needle-in-a-haystack problem; the last thing you want to do is increase the amount of hay you have to search through. The television show Person of Interest is fiction, not fact.'"
Good luck if he thinks he convince the American public that televised fiction isn't fact.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"The television show Person of Interest is fiction, not fact." - I'd more characterize it as an fs*cking fairy tale, not just fiction.
... the collection of data helps after the fact, i.e., once someone is caught. The additional data allows a more solid case to be built, and makes it easier to find co-conspirators.
The main problem here is that people just don't seem to care about freedom if they believe that something will keep them safe (or at least makes them feel safe). Even if it were true that the TSA, ubiquitous government surveillance, free speech zones, the Patriot Act, and warrantless surveillance in general kept people safe, that wouldn't make them any less wrong. Indeed, the main problem is that people seem to generally be spineless cowards who give up freedom for safety and are easily manipulated (especially after a disaster).
Needle-in-a-haystack problem? Really? Seriously, in the post-PC era... data mining gets more difficult as the amount of data increases? uh... I've always thought that to gain any meaningful stats, you need a large enough sample...
Data collection systems suffers from the same math results as machinery systems, only with generally less reliable components.
The so called Justice system is after all a shit filter that also creates more shit.
"Piling more data onto the mix makes it harder, not easier. The best way to think of it is a needle-in-a-haystack problem" This is simply not true. It assumes that all the data is hay, when infact some of the data could be a needle.
That works for trends. Not for the actions of individuals.
From TFA:
He's a bit wrong there. It isn't a million unnumbered pictures. It's one picture per person in the country at the time. That's over 300 million pictures. Each one overlapping millions of other pictures.
And after a certain point you are just amplifying the "noise". And enough "noise" can appear to be a pattern.
It is only after an event that the "noise" can be filtered out and the extraneous pictures discarded.
hahaha. in my german speaking country we used to joke (translating) "OH, he's making hay" to say that
someone was messing around not really sure what he's doing.
imagine someone with a pitch fork throwing newly mowed grass into the air...
Obvious, but Bruce does good marketing.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The purpose of intelligence agencies in powerful nations has NOTHING to do with threats from 'criminals' and 'terrorists'. No, it is about giving the true masters of these societies the most perfect control possible of the 'mob'.
Today, the internet allows those that rule you to get feedback in real-time that explains the effectiveness of ANY governmental PR campaign disseminated by the mass media. If the response of the sheeple is 'wrong', the message can be immediately re-engineered and broadcast again. Reading the content of the electronic communications of the masses is essential for this feedback process.
Of course, the collection of ever possible detail about every individual serves the old original purpose of intelligence agencies- the elimination of enemies of the 'king' by using the words of those enemies against them. Where an elite believe they have near perfect control, their paranoia over possible 'palace coups' becomes near absolute.
We do not wonder where nations like the USA and UK are going, because we already have the answer from history. Simple turn to the story of the USSR. The fake 'left' and 'right' parties of these two nations are, in reality, far closer than were the various factions of the communist movement within the old USSR. Just like was the Soviet case, who ever you vote for in the UK or USA, you get the same people behind the scenes running the exact same mid and long term policies. The USSR gathered every detail about every citizen that state-of-the-art technology allowed at the time. This information was entirely used to ensure the status quo experienced by the vast majority of Soviet citizens continued.
Increasingly, the UK and USA ruthlessly exterminate opposition movements that arise from the grass-roots. At the same time, they provide state-run, national 'anti-government' forums that the disaffected sheep are instructed to join if they wish to express opposition to anything the government appears to be currently doing. Most of the sheeple are told to express any anti-government sentiment they might be feeling by tuning in to things like the 'Colbert Report' on a mass media channel. The Soviets also used the same form of population control by having state-approved 'comedians' mock the current Soviet ruling classes.
Before the Mark 1 version of the USSR 'collapsed', its police state control of its population had been the most successful such project in Human History. Even today, it is Soviet space tech that the hopeless Americans rely on to get them to the Space Station. My point is that it is a fallacy to think, by definition, that an oppressive police-state with a brutal intelligence apparatus cannot also be a productive and technologically advanced nation. Sadly (as Slashdot comments so frequently prove) 'technocrats' thrive under authoritarian regimes, because of their common psychological profiles.
Again, re-read '1984' and try to understand it this time. We must accept that technology allows the most evil forms of societal control to be perfected. Evil alphas dream of the coming times when the sheeple are finally put in their "deserved" place for good. The Fabian philosophy, which dominates this planet, is that Humans split into two species- the 'Alphas' who rise to the top given the opportunity, and the 'chaff' who exist only to serve the desires of the alphas. The Fabians, basing their views on a perverted understanding of Ancient Rome', believe that every Human should be given the chance to exhibit their 'alpha' qualities, regardless of race, religion, or accident of birth- and thus they shake off any feeling of guilt as to the fate of those Humans who are not alphas.
To Fabians, intelligence gathering is no different from how and why a farmer keeps records on his livestock. To a Fabian, a World War is the ultimate concept in livestock management. The people that run Google, for instance, are proud to be on record saying that the population of the Earth needs to be massively reduced.
Didn't the FBI make a similar comment after it was revealed that they had questioned the Boston bomber in the past? Something to the effect that they could not follow up on every suspicisous character without turning the country into a police state.
So you are walking in thin ice, you could get big charges for something that you don't see as a crime (or see it as a joke or a prank). And people do weird things in that kind of situations,
Penguin Pete, persona non gratia forever on Slashdot, just put it better last week:
http://penguinpetes.com/b2evo/index.php?title=why_i_don_t_give_a_rip_about_cispa_and_w&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
QUOTE:
I f you introduce an enormous volume of noise into your data sample, you have a lot of noise in your data sample. They collect your personal data to take ownership of your personal life and make you feel subservient. It's mot for the ""terrorists"".
nah a cover up it woudl have been called Person X - Shows with X in the title do better in the ratings
Bruce says we need LESS surveillance, and you call him a liar and monster?
Did you read the article?
And what the hell is that at the end about Fabio? Sure, he's got great hair and a strong chiseled chin, but even he understands that without those less good-looking, he wouldn't be able to earn a living selling them butter substitutes.
It was never about increasing safety. Loss of civil rights is a feature, not a bug.
aww dammit, misclicked and accidentally modded this shit up... shut up already, nobody cares
Adding pure noise to data sets indeed results in a price to be paid in terms of accuracy of statistical models. However, if statistical modeling is done properly, this price is low.
The proper argument still needs to go back to ethical/civil rights aspects.
Only someone who has not lived on a farm could ever think that you build a bigger haystack to make it easier to find a needle in it.
They had been suspects prior, from what I have read and heard. The FBI and other unknown agencies had questioned the two long before the bombings. You have, about 20 American neo-nazi groups that are going to resort to using terror tactics, and the FBI and other agencies have no idea who will be the ones to start it. But they have files on the the people they dub to be a threat, usually the ones most active in spreading the message, and it is almost a a sure bet it will be the followers that have not been profiled that will start it.
Bottom line to me the 2 involved in the bombings were doing it for a thrill, and not because of some unjust religious cause. Then you have the mass murders walking into any building and opening gun fire at anyone, who haven't been profiled. I am surprised the agencies at power haven't just come out and used that as another excuse to squeeze more out of your privacy.
They use one to try and monitor guns, and the other to monitor people, all of it is propaganda. Yes there are terrorists groups but the government is using it as a means to implement controls of its own citizens. Far beyond what they used to do..
In 2010 he wrote an argument for data sharing between federal intelligence agencies in a yet another almost arrogantly titled post[1].
they need to share information among the different parts of themselves.
I can't help but feel that in recent years he has started to ride the popularity wave and has lost sight of the reality; he seems to only comment on hot button issues at just the right time and is thus becoming less relevant.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Fixing-intelligence-failures-3202795.php
You fail it, Paul. Your skill is not enough.
You fail it, Paul. Your skill is not enough.
Check your facts.
One (not both) had been questioned at the request of the russians. The russians refused to supply enough information about the nature of their prior request, and the FBI questions were answered satisfactorily.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
What good did all the control and data for the USSR and East-Germany? The latter really had perfected the art of its citizens spying on its citizens and still: It just collapsed. You can't really control a population. There are just too many people and when they decide to do something all your control is moot.
That's actually the point Schneier tries to make: From a certain point on collecting more and more data the ROI (and eroding civil liberties is one of those "investments") just isn't there anymore. You're sitting in a nice deep hole and busy yourself with digging it deeper.
The Washington Post:
"Impossible to determine", exactly. The US is so poor and the government spends so much without getting anything useful done because the wars it sprays over the world and the cold war on the people.
It would be wiser to accept some risks. You can't (and don't want to!) have a state in which two young people can't get at some black powder and pressure cookers and learn how to make a bomb. This is madness.
There are some criminals that act out of an inability to control their actions. Cams and the like or the threat of being caught will do nothing to slow them down. Usually they self limit as they take no precautions against being caught.
But there is an entirely different world of criminals who are in it for the money and are calculating and hard to catch. My late brother in law was a criminal who specialized in the theft of tractor trailer rigs and ran a chop shop where the engines and valuable parts were extracted and sold. The repair facilities that buy and install stolen engines and transmissions know exactly what they are buying by the way. My brother in law spent seven years in a federal prison as a consequence. After release he would jokingly complain with the jovial remark"What's a criminal to do?". That was in reference to the new technologies and the difficulty of being a criminal in the new, electronic age. He would remark that crime was no longer a "good way to go". But although he gave up on chopping trucks and the like he never did really leave crime. Defrauding an insurance company or a marriage for which he was paid in order to gain citizenship for an immigrant and all kinds of petty schemes were always part of his life. He suffered from paranoia and schizophrenia and hated society intensely. But I do agree with him that the normal, old fashioned crooks don't stand a chance these days. In some areas there are so many private cams up and running that burglars often appear on chains of cam as they approach a home and break in. It is no longer a matter of parking a distance away as with so many cams tracking him back to his vehicle can be a breeze. Our local crime rates are trivial. In a nearby community every public street is surveilled non stop by the police department. The town has one road in and one road out as well so every vehicle is on tape as well as where it stops, when it stops and how long it stops. What's a criminal to do? They tried invading by boats a couple of times. Oops, precautions exist against that as well. No resident of the town is not a millionaire and no dwelling or apartment under one million dollars exists.
Nah... we've been convinced of that since Blade Runner at the latest. Probably much earlier.
I suppose this is a problem, but we have to be realistic here. The FBI has failed repeatedly to complete large software projects. They have trouble handling even clear-cut data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Case_File
On what, a 486DX? I haven't used HOSTS files in awhile (prefer my recursive DNS) but it never took me more than a minute and a half to load mine and that was on an anemic 1.1GHz Celeron I kept at the shop for such jobs.
So I have to wonder how little your knowledge of networking is if it takes you THAT long to load a single HOSTS file, hell even if you went the long way around and converted it into peerguardian format and loaded it up that way it shouldn't take more than 10 minutes tops.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Bruce Schneier doesn't need to hide data with steganography - data hides from Bruce Schneier
Bruce Schneier knows who the Anonymous Coward is
Bruce Schneier can recite pi. Backwards.
Bruce Schneier can securely wipe any hard drive by shaking it like an etch-a-sketch.
Bruce Schneier knows Chuck Norris' private key.
Bruce Schneier can write a recursive program that proves the Riemann Hypothesis. In Malbolge.
Bruce Schneier can read captchas.
Hashes collide because they're swerving to avoid Bruce Schneier.
Bruce Schneier is the root of all certificates.
Bruce Schneier intercepts all your internal monologues by a man-in-the-middle attack.
http://www.schneierfacts.com/
The reason that having more data makes things harder to track is because we don't have "The Machine". YET!!
...just type his name into your shell prompt.
have to try this one. lol
... presses the enhance button repeatedly to view the person from another angle and 20ft away, using satellite images.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
While Collecting More Data Doesn't Increase Safety, authorities might not have been able to track down the bombers in Boston before they made it to New York. I am not advocating big brother, but if your in a public place you really can not expect any privacy. There are just too many idiots out there. Americans simply rely on the government to take care of them.
The question is if the needle to hay ratio is better in the added hay.
If there was no needles in the original haystack, adding more hay may add a needle.
There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
Projecting his own "modus operandi". He runs from a simple question -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3722427&cid=43654735 (since he outright lies on trolling others by ac posts, uses sockpuppets galore to mod himself up + his detractors down, & was caught doing so in the 2nd link below red-handed), & he also claims to have worked at Microsoft (b.s., imo because of what I state next), & yet got completely spanked by "yours truly" on actual computer technical information regarding custom hosts files - very fundamental networking & algorithmically oriented stuff no less, real 'CSC-101 stuff' -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3725365&cid=43659719 (which he can't disprove, but it certainly did prove his ac trollings which he outright lied about & by the 100's that he gave away he was doing here http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741 ).
* Bottom-line here? Hey - Unlike YOU, I don't NEED 'support' like you do, sockpuppet master: Facts did you in & they're ALL I need, above.
(NOW - Whose "skill is not enough"? See those links above, & especially the 2nd one, on the note of skills...)
APK
P.S.=> You fail Jeremiah Cornelius - & you're a pitiful pot calling a kettle black hypocrite here since the 1st link has you doing a "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" avoiding answering it, and YOU failed miserably in the 2nd link above, 3x in a ROW/"3 strikes yer out" (& you know it)... apk