We saw this happening in Canada some years back (Thanks, Drew!) with the government of the day proposing ISPs being turned into attractive targets for anyone wanting to impersonate people ("identity theft").
Worse, the kind of processing required to extract the metadata requires a machine the cost of one's main router, so people proposed ISPs should "just spool everything to disk" for a few days.
The next thought was to call for a longer retention period...
The Canadian (federal) government is doing the same thing, but accompany it with written gag orders for scientists on the payroll, and defunding of scientific research in selected areas.
That's huge: in the UK the banks were temporarily able to do that by claiming chip-and-pin cards were secure (boy, was that not true). The courts threw it out, as you might imagine, but only after lots of people were defrauded.
In Canada, the banks are on the hook, and have refunded me both times their "unhackable" pin-and-chip card got hacked. We and the US are looking at card-and-signature systems, which have good customer protection as humans can verify claimed forgeries, just like cheques.
I'm David in general, DCB at work (there are lots of Daves), Orv as a nickname, Uncle Dave to my nephew when he was little, Mr Collier to all sorts of illiterate clerks. I have a pen-name, and a bunch of versions of my name required by email providers. My name also changed when I got married, as did my wife's.
When dealing with vendors I don't necessarily trust, I'm just "sir" and pay with cash. Considering the internet make it possible for vendors to be anywhere and anyone, I expect that we'll all to do more that way. My credit-card vendor, who already issues me single-use card-numbers for particularly suspicious vendors: I also expect to see single-use numbers with no name, just a single guaranteed amount.
Oh, and by the way, while I have to identify myself to get into the booth, my vote has no name attached.
It's front-page news for a soldier to be killed on duty in Canada. Believe it or not, it's also front-page news when an RCMP officer was killed on duty a few years back.
Canadians usually die from car accidents (or are eaten by polar bears (;-))
Specifically the "Reform Party" extending their power. Yes, my friends, we to have a Canadian Reform Party, and it's way farther to the right than Ross Perot ever was. They did a hostile takeover of the Conservatives, and now run the place.
Literally crazy, in this case. He tried to get himself thrown into jail to recover from at least his addictions, if not his possible insanity. Without success!
If you don't care about constitutionality, you prohibit your legal draughtsmen from reporting on it, and you pass what you want. It's up to your opponents to find a good test case, and figure out how to pay for a challenge when they don't have standing.
IMHO, These are far too rational for Mr Moore to get past cabinet, as they might be seen as desirable regulation.
The politics of the day is to avoid regulating (ie, policing) industry.
They're directly applicable to copyright trolling, by the way, and quite a good idea. I'll suggest that.
They're not supposed to learn things like that, it will affect their close rates
--dave
My local Chief of Police has fought for years to get his people to "keep the peace" instead of "show high case-closed numbers". He's started to succeed, and the crime rates are going down, but he's been rewarded by budget cuts and being phased out for being too expansive... Bummer!
The number of cmparisons for sample size N is (N * N-1). You've just tied up all the computers in the universe doing realtime FR of the general population (;-))
You need as many 9's after the decimal point as you have digits in (N * N-1). As N is unbounded and accuracy is bounded, you get screwed. It's fine for a 10-person company (90 comparisons, negligable false positives) It's out of the question for airports (10,000 * 9,999 comparisons)
No, that other commentator been mislead by a company that sells facial recognition. Google knows the math, and prohibits that particular stupidity by contract.
It's TERRIBLE public policy for people to be pulled aside for mere physical resemblance to a third person. A person the cop's never seen, and only has a photo of, but they've been told by a computer that this is the person in the photograph.
To oversimplify, if you have 1 error in a thousand, and you have 10,000 (crooks + innocent people), you do (10,000 * 9,999) comparisons and get 99,990,000 / 1,000 = 9,990 errors. In stats, it's a selection of every two persons out of 10,000.
It's really something like (select one of 100 crooks from 10,000 innocents), but it's still an insanely huge number of comparisons. Hoeever good your technology, adding more people will give you (N * N-1) more chances of getting an error.
Facial recognition vendors are very careful to NOT report their error rates in ways that expose this problem: it's the "elephant in the room" for that industry. And that includes Siemens, my former employer.
The German Federal security service tried this years ago in airports, and got a combinatorial explosion in false positives (AKA the "birthday paradox") that drowned out the real positives. Google knows the math, and is trying to save the inumerate from an expensive failure (;-))
When I was starting out, we had tons of women in what was a low-status industry, where programming was described as "teaching mechanical children". I think there's a broader discussion in Kraft's "Programmers and Managers" (Springer-Verlag).
And they are a moral hazard directed at police chiefs: they tempt the cheifs to push for convictions, which are measurable, instead of prevention, which isn't.
ABSTRACT
This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.
In http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/0... The abstract is there because the title of the article will enrage the folks doing the prosecution...
"Do one thing well" is how Unix kernel functions are written, and it's just plain a good idea. Systemd probably follows the first principle internally, many programs do.
Creating production systems[1] out of single-purpose commands connected by pipelines is a different principle, and only works if you keep them pretty simple. It's not a prionciple, but it is how a lot of Unix scripts are written, NOT including the shell that glues the parts together, and not including all the more complex programs, like ed or mail. Systemd doesn't follow the second, because it's more like ed than a text transformation like spell.
A more useful question is whether systemd as a whole does one thing, and does it well. About that, one might usefully discuss whether the Unix principle applies.
--dave
[Pipelines were patterned after a subset of "production systems" in early AI, which applied transforms to "produce" new things. They're not the kind of production systems you put on a raised floor]
Slashdot Mirror
We saw this happening in Canada some years back (Thanks, Drew!) with the government of the day proposing ISPs being turned into attractive targets for anyone wanting to impersonate people ("identity theft").
Worse, the kind of processing required to extract the metadata requires a machine the cost of one's main router, so people proposed ISPs should "just spool everything to disk" for a few days.
The next thought was to call for a longer retention period...
--dave
[It didn't pass, somewhat miraculously]
The Canadian (federal) government is doing the same thing, but accompany it with written gag orders for scientists on the payroll, and defunding of scientific research in selected areas.
That's huge: in the UK the banks were temporarily able to do that by claiming chip-and-pin cards were secure (boy, was that not true). The courts threw it out, as you might imagine, but only after lots of people were defrauded.
In Canada, the banks are on the hook, and have refunded me both times their "unhackable" pin-and-chip card got hacked. We and the US are looking at card-and-signature systems, which have good customer protection as humans can verify claimed forgeries, just like cheques.
I'm David in general, DCB at work (there are lots of Daves), Orv as a nickname, Uncle Dave to my nephew when he was little, Mr Collier to all sorts of illiterate clerks. I have a pen-name, and a bunch of versions of my name required by email providers. My name also changed when I got married, as did my wife's.
When dealing with vendors I don't necessarily trust, I'm just "sir" and pay with cash. Considering the internet make it possible for vendors to be anywhere and anyone, I expect that we'll all to do more that way. My credit-card vendor, who already issues me single-use card-numbers for particularly suspicious vendors: I also expect to see single-use numbers with no name, just a single guaranteed amount.
Oh, and by the way, while I have to identify myself to get into the booth, my vote has no name attached.
--dave
You mean it *doesn't* take over the front pages when a soldier is killed in Canada? That it happens all the time?
It's front-page news for a soldier to be killed on duty in Canada. Believe it or not, it's also front-page news when an RCMP officer was killed on duty a few years back.
Canadians usually die from car accidents (or are eaten by polar bears (;-))
Specifically the "Reform Party" extending their power. Yes, my friends, we to have a Canadian Reform Party, and it's way farther to the right than Ross Perot ever was. They did a hostile takeover of the Conservatives, and now run the place.
Literally crazy, in this case. He tried to get himself thrown into jail to recover from at least his addictions, if not his possible insanity. Without success!
He was doing a ceremonial guard duty, as an honour. He probably didn't expect to be shot in the back.
The operational bases were on moderate alert, but apparently the PM didn't think he or anyone else needed to be careful...
How about finding someone who's tried to be thrown in jail and seemingly wants to go get killed, and cancel their passport...
If you don't care about constitutionality, you prohibit your legal draughtsmen from reporting on it, and you pass what you want. It's up to your opponents to find a good test case, and figure out how to pay for a challenge when they don't have standing.
IMHO, These are far too rational for Mr Moore to get past cabinet, as they might be seen as desirable regulation. The politics of the day is to avoid regulating (ie, policing) industry.
They're directly applicable to copyright trolling, by the way, and quite a good idea. I'll suggest that.
--dave
They're not supposed to learn things like that, it will affect their close rates
--dave
My local Chief of Police has fought for years to get his people to "keep the peace" instead of "show high case-closed numbers". He's started to succeed, and the crime rates are going down, but he's been rewarded by budget cuts and being phased out for being too expansive... Bummer!
The number of cmparisons for sample size N is (N * N-1). You've just tied up all the computers in the universe doing realtime FR of the general population (;-))
You need as many 9's after the decimal point as you have digits in (N * N-1). As N is unbounded and accuracy is bounded, you get screwed. It's fine for a 10-person company (90 comparisons, negligable false positives) It's out of the question for airports (10,000 * 9,999 comparisons)
As the ARPAnauts would say "it doesn't scale"
Detention without trial, on suspicion of looking like Dr. Evil (;-))
No, that other commentator been mislead by a company that sells facial recognition. Google knows the math, and prohibits that particular stupidity by contract.
It's TERRIBLE public policy for people to be pulled aside for mere physical resemblance to a third person. A person the cop's never seen, and only has a photo of, but they've been told by a computer that this is the person in the photograph.
And computers are never wrong
Even worse, they have a combinatorial explosion problem (mentioned in the "Enforce" thread above).
better technology doesn't help enough!
To oversimplify, if you have 1 error in a thousand, and you have 10,000 (crooks + innocent people), you do (10,000 * 9,999) comparisons and get 99,990,000 / 1,000 = 9,990 errors. In stats, it's a selection of every two persons out of 10,000.
It's really something like (select one of 100 crooks from 10,000 innocents), but it's still an insanely huge number of comparisons. Hoeever good your technology, adding more people will give you (N * N-1) more chances of getting an error.
Facial recognition vendors are very careful to NOT report their error rates in ways that expose this problem: it's the "elephant in the room" for that industry. And that includes Siemens, my former employer.
The German Federal security service tried this years ago in airports, and got a combinatorial explosion in false positives (AKA the "birthday paradox") that drowned out the real positives. Google knows the math, and is trying to save the inumerate from an expensive failure (;-))
When I was starting out, we had tons of women in what was a low-status industry, where programming was described as "teaching mechanical children". I think there's a broader discussion in Kraft's "Programmers and Managers" (Springer-Verlag).
And they are a moral hazard directed at police chiefs: they tempt the cheifs to push for convictions, which are measurable, instead of prevention, which isn't.
ABSTRACT
This article argues that our current laws on the topic are counterproductive, because they protect child molesters instead of bringing them to justice, they criminalize a generation of normally-behaving teenagers which diverts valuable police resources from the criminals we should be going after, and they lead to censorship and electronic book burning as well as unacceptable collateral damage to innocent families. Child abuse as such is not condoned by anybody, and this article argues that current laws are counterproductive in preventing and prosecuting it.
In http://falkvinge.net/2012/09/0... The abstract is there because the title of the article will enrage the folks doing the prosecution...
"Do one thing well" is how Unix kernel functions are written, and it's just plain a good idea. Systemd probably follows the first principle internally, many programs do.
Creating production systems[1] out of single-purpose commands connected by pipelines is a different principle, and only works if you keep them pretty simple. It's not a prionciple, but it is how a lot of Unix scripts are written, NOT including the shell that glues the parts together, and not including all the more complex programs, like ed or mail. Systemd doesn't follow the second, because it's more like ed than a text transformation like spell.
A more useful question is whether systemd as a whole does one thing, and does it well. About that, one might usefully discuss whether the Unix principle applies.
--dave
[Pipelines were patterned after a subset of "production systems" in early AI, which applied transforms to "produce" new things. They're not the kind of production systems you put on a raised floor]