Slashdot Mirror
DARPA Fears Big Data Could Become Big Threat
Nerval's Lobster writes "For most businesses, data analytics presents an opportunity. But for DARPA, the military agency responsible for developing new technology, so-called 'Big Data' could represent a big threat. DARPA is apparently looking to fund researchers who can 'investigate the national security threat posed by public data available either for purchase or through open sources.' That means developing tools that can evaluate whether a particular public dataset will have a significant impact on national security, as well as blunt the force of that impact if necessary. 'The threat of active data spills and breaches of corporate and government information systems are being addressed by many private, commercial, and government organizations,' reads DARPA's posting on the matter. 'The purpose of this research is to investigate data sources that are readily available for any individual to purchase, mine, and exploit.' As Foreign Policy points out, there's a certain amount of irony in the government soliciting ways to reduce its vulnerability to data exploitation. 'At the time government officials are assuring Americans they have nothing to fear from the National Security Agency poring through their personal records,' the publication wrote, 'the military is worried that Russia or al Qaeda is going to wreak nationwide havoc after combing through people's personal records.'"
Is the government declaring Facebook a national security threat because of all the information people post on it, and having it shut down.
I'm definitely concerned about big data, but the big data that concerns me the most is in the hands of the NSA.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
No. But it certainly makes you wonder what sort of analysis is currently being run by our government. As processing speeds increase (a thousand fold in the next 10-15 years) such analysis could be run by many organizations.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
If DARPA is trying to mitigate the threat then this effort deserves support.
If they are looking a way to "shut it down" then they're being way naive. This is happening (among other reasons) because of Moore's Law and you aren't going to change it.
We've but a woefully inept government and bad leadership at all levels of society, so I really don't know which this proposal aims at.
(and I haven't read TFA).
Or enacting laws on what data companies can collect about you and what they're legally allowed to do with it. You know, actual privacy laws and laws around data security.
But that won't happen -- because it would cut into corporate profits, and because it would cut down on some of the sources the NSA themselves use.
This in the end will be DARPA saying "how can we collect all of this information while still trying to keep it out of the hands of them." And nothing at all will change.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
but it is federal, state and local governments that are the people's main enemy here, not the russians or chinese.
It's the ability to destroy anyone's career or political ambitions through selective "summarization", and to win with certainty over any competing business in any industry with unmatchable demographic and competitive analysis information.
Of course the NSA wants to be the only people with this particular "weapon", and likewise the only people their corporate cronies' revolving-doors are open for.
Considering all the discussions about 'big data' and DARPA is actually in this rare instance way behind the curve.
My own data analysis of what has happened says that the combination of processing and storage in the potential adversarial hands is so great, a set of counter measures is really hard to find now.
There are extrinsic factors, but DARPA is far from the right theoretical understanding. Albeit, the DARPA research that helped propel big data, the ARPA-NET has spawned so much, so quickly it is nearly hopeless and now requires a brand new paradigm to get that tiger by the tail for security.
FYI, make sure Snowden gets a pardon as soon as possible, that will help!
http://www.aisnota.com/slashdot/ Welcome to Logic and the Future
Big Government is afraid of the damage Big Data could do because it knows the impact of storing and processing massive quantities of data. It has a lot of experience doing this, itself, and is afraid of anyone else doing the same thing.
If DARPA is looking into this, that means that they are looking at whether the *analytics* applied to publicly or purchasable big datasets could mine information like troop buildup/movements, military targets, etc., etc.
For example, if I'm a subcontractor of a defense contractor and I suddenly post on the Interwebz that I am purchasing 300 million gallons of drone aviation fuel, you might be able to combine that with other little bits of data (e.g. another subcontractor suddenly posts that they are purchasing 15,000 airline tickets to Giblisztan), you might be able to predict that a strike is coming in and react appropriately.
Obviously the DoD and their contractors attempt to make sure that those obvious details above aren't readily available, but you might still be able to piece together US military activities pretty readily from even tiny bits of correlated information that are available.
However, from the original summary:
If that's really what was written in the original publication, then whoever wrote that did a terrible fucking job of analyzing what DARPA really wants this for and conveying that in writing, or was just trying to turn this into clickbait/fear-mongering/whatever.
.. that the ad immediately to the right of this was for BIG DATA & ANALYTICS services for IBM? Apropos ad placement humor.
Insert witty
Of course by "certain" they mean "obscene".
A looming danger is that everyone in these institutions becomes so zealous in the execution of their appointed duties that they lose all sense of humor, humanity, and irony. In the US I see this sort of humorless automaton behavior all the time: in cops, tsa agents, border patrol - basically from people in most positions of state authority. When you constantly subdue your humanity, you give yourself over to authoritarian tendencies, so expect all sorts of abuses to follow.
At the risk of sounding histrionic: the real threat isn't that machines will take over humanity, but rather humans will become machines.
It also won't happen because it's so easy for companies to argue that the information is voluntarily being shared with the company. And the thing is, the company is actually correct in observing this. As to what they may do with that information, well, it's moot as long as the government can demand it at any time.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
He's (at least partially) right, though: most of the responders are going on about the NSA and government spying without realizing that this project has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with any of that. The project is to see if potential enemy states (or terrorists, anyone interested in exploiting a vulnerability) can, using large sets of easily available information, find potential national vulnerabilities (at the economical, social, and military level) of another country. Maybe a pattern that indicates a strike at x factory would disrupt y supply chain, potentially devastating a whole section of the economy. Or maybe that a post on z news site that would prompt mass panic. That kind of thing. Not warrantless wiretaps: the goal is to use information that literally anyone could access, and to find vulnerabilities to an entire country or community, not the life story of singular individuals.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Of course, that's bullshit, but they'll claim it.
As an experiment, I just went to the LA Times website. By your theory, if my bullshit blockers hadn't blocked revsci.com, gigya.com, newsinc.com, jumptime.com, and brightcove.com -- then I will have voluntarily provided information to these fuckers.
So, no, just because sites put web bugs, ads, polls, and all sorts of 3rd party shit in their web pages that might not be obvious -- that doesn't mean there was anything voluntary (or even informed) in this. It means a sneaky bunch of marketing assholes are in there without asking me, and they feel self entitled to do so.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.