• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Fight for a just cause, love your fellow man, live a good life.

Yeah, with this crowd one never knows.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

The truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

Shut up, hissy kitty!

Republicans do not pay their debts.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Polls are now a reliable indicator of what corporate Republicans want us to think.

Everything is totally normal and fine!!!

Boeing: repeatedly making the case for high speed rail.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

A sufficient plurality of insane, greedy people can tank any democratic system ever devised, apparently.

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

Oppose, oppose, oppose. do not congratulate. this is not business as usual.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

Not loving this new fraud based economy.

The current Supreme Court is a dangerous, rogue court.

Sitting here in limbo waiting for the dice to roll

In after Baud. Damn.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Make the republican party small enough to drown in a bathtub.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Minority Report

Minority Report

by Tim F|  December 12, 200612:27 pm| 24 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics, Science & Technology

FacebookTweetEmail

Via Noah Schactman at Defensetech: Jeff Jonas, one of the nation’s leading data mining experts, has serious doubts about whether our government’s massive data mining projects have a remote chance of returning useful information.

One of the fundamental underpinnings of predictive data mining in the commercial sector is the use of training patterns. Corporations that study consumer behavior have millions of patterns that they can draw upon to profile their typical or ideal consumer. Even when data mining is used to seek out instances of identity and credit card fraud, this relies on models constructed using many thousands of known examples of fraud per year.

Terrorism has no similar indicia. With a relatively small number of attempts every year and only one or two major terrorist incidents every few years—each one distinct in terms of planning and execution—there are no meaningful patterns that show what behavior indicates planning or preparation for terrorism.

[…] Without patterns to use, one fallback for terrorism data mining is the idea that any anomaly may provide the basis for investigation of terrorism planning. Given a “typical” American pattern of Internet use, phone calling, doctor visits, purchases, travel, reading, and so on, perhaps all outliers merit some level of investigation. This theory is offensive to traditional American freedom, because in the United States everyone can and should be an “outlier” in some sense. More concretely, though, using data mining in this way could be worse than searching at random; terrorists could defeat it by acting as normally as possible.

Treating “anomalous” behavior as suspicious may appear scientific, but, without patterns to look for, the design of a search algorithm based on anomaly is no more likely to turn up terrorists than twisting the end of a kaleidoscope is likely to draw an image of the Mona Lisa.

As the civil liberty debate rages, even our extreme authoritarians couch their arguments in terms of benefit relative to cost. If the benefit doesn’t exist then wannabe autocrats like Newt Gingrich plainly have no leg to stand on. The only remaining support would have to come from these programs’ side benefits, primarily the existence of a detailed dossier on the personal life of every American citizen. That should come in handy in case any priest becomes, as one departed ruler might put it, a bit turbulent.*

(*) Once we’ve dumped the Magna Carta and rejected the Enlightenment, there’s no reason why our classical references shouldn’t go all the way back.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Open Thread
Next Post: Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

24Comments

  1. 1.

    Steve

    December 12, 2006 at 12:42 pm

    Here’s an actual 9/11 Commission recommendation that doesn’t get enough attention:

    # As the President determines the guidelines for information sharing among government agencies and by those agencies with the private sector, he should safeguard the privacy of individuals about whom information is shared…

    The burden of proof for retaining a particular governmental power should be on the executive, to explain (a) that the power actually materially enhances security and (b) that there is adequate supervision of the executive’s use of the powers to ensure protection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be adequate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.

    When they instituted random subway searches here in NYC, very few of us “liberal” New Yorkers were opposed because of our precious privacy rights, although surely it’s an inconvenience. No, people were generally opposed because it’s an inconvenience and WON’T WORK. If a bomb-carrying terrorist enters a subway station and sees the cops doing searches, he’ll just leave and walk two blocks to the next station where there aren’t any cops.

    People are willing to make a lot of personal sacrifices in exchange for a security program that actually works. What this adminstration, and its authoritarian supporters, fail to realize is that they bear the burden of showing that a program works. Instead, it’s completely faith based, backed up solely by rumors on some right-wing blog that maybe this program led to the capture of such-and-such terrorist, or whatever, oh and it’s treason to leak the fact that the program exists because now we’re in the position of having to justify it.

    The simple fact seems to be that none of the intrusive programs instituted since 9/11 seem to be accomplishing much, and we’re mostly stopping terrorist threats through good old-fashioned law enforcement. If I’m wrong, too bad, because the burden is on the government to show it needs these new powers, and they haven’t done a damn thing in that regard.

  2. 2.

    Elvis Elvisberg

    December 12, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    If you try to make the unpatriotic argument that costs should be in some proportion to benefits, you’ll be told that the downside is the destruction of America.

    Therefore, to save America, we must abandon the inconvenient aspects of the Constitution, torture suspected criminals, invade other countries without scrutinizing evidence, and generally lay flat every law in the land to get at the terrorists.

    Otherwise, the terrorists will have won.

  3. 3.

    The Other Steve

    December 12, 2006 at 1:42 pm

    Frankly, about the only thing data collection is good for is after the fact data mining. That is, if you’ve got a tip you can query…

    Show me everybody who in the past week has bought, a turkey baster, a handgun and a copy of Catcher in the Rye.

  4. 4.

    RSA

    December 12, 2006 at 1:48 pm

    Civil rights issues aside, I think that Jonas’s article may be oversimplifying the technical issues involved. For example:

    Treating “anomalous” behavior as suspicious may appear scientific, but, without patterns to look for, the design of a search algorithm based on anomaly is no more likely to turn up terrorists than twisting the end of a kaleidoscope is likely to draw an image of the Mona Lisa.

    Most if not all of Jonas’s examples could be used as arguments that human attempts to identify and prevent terrorist attacks are doomed to failure (which may indeed be the case–but the argument is not specific to automated identification of suspicious patterns of behavior). I could just as easily write, “Searching for terrorists is no more likely to succeed than applying brush to canvas is likely to come up with an image of the Mona Lisa.”

    If the argument becomes that we should pursue good old-fashioned detective work, that’s fine, because human intelligence (in the NSA/defense sense of the phrase) can’t be gained directly by automated systems, and for some kinds of decision-making, human involvement or oversight is going to be necessary for the foreseeable future. When it comes down to pattern recognition, however, there are no good technical reasons why some of the burden can’t be shared with computers (leaving aside the separate question of whether we can build sufficiently sensitive algorithms).

  5. 5.

    Zifnab

    December 12, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    When it comes down to pattern recognition, however, there are no good technical reasons why some of the burden can’t be shared with computers (leaving aside the separate question of whether we can build sufficiently sensitive algorithms).

    That’s kinda the crux of the issue. Can we build sufficiently sensitive algorithms? Spending a billion dollars on Eschalon doesn’t do us any good if we just use it to Google-search “people who want to blow up America” and turn up ten million queries. The whole point is that an American will volunteer up his freedom for security, but he does demand that he actually gets security.

    But the data mining and the No-Fly List and the wiretapping don’t seem to be yeilding up any terrorists, so why are they still in place? If Bush proclaimed “We’re going to ransack every fifth house in America looking for terrorists”, a reasonable person would call that insane, stupid, and a waste of resources. The current policy – spying on Quakers, barring Cat Stevens from using an airplane, extraditing people to Syria for torture after other agencies have already aquited them – would be laughable if it was being practiced by the Soviets or the Chinese. This is the fruit of our vaunted “Republican Anti-Terror Initative” and it mostly just pisses people off.

    I don’t care whether a computer database can catch terrorists. I care if our database will catch them. So far, I haven’t seen any reason to believe that what our President is currently doing actually works.

  6. 6.

    RSA

    December 12, 2006 at 2:23 pm

    I don’t think any projects that have gotten attention so far are on the right track, including all the ones you mention. On the other hand, there are approaches that have been sorta-kinda successful in related areas that could turn out to be part of a better solution. Link analysis has been used to detect fraud in the banking and insurance industries, and red/blue team strategies have had some success in network intrusion detection; these pose comparable problems to identifying terrorists in that the bad guys are trying to fly under the radar by blending into larger groups of people and their behaviors. Of course, the risks and remedies are entirely different. Still, they might be good alternatives to rooting through everyone’s data all the time. The first approach above focuses more on social networks and such (okay, that could be pretty intrusive, but it could also be seeded with known terrorists to limit the spread), while the second can focus on vulnerabilities rather than specific attackers.

    (This is all off the top of my head, based on occasional conversations with people working in these areas. It’s been ten years since I’ve been really familiar with the data mining literature, and it’s moved quite far in that time. Just thought I’d throw in more grist.)

  7. 7.

    grumpy realist

    December 12, 2006 at 2:26 pm

    When the number of false positives vastly outweights the possible true positives, your data mining is a bloody waste of time. You’d have done better spending the same amount of money into more humint and all the tedious tracking down of leads through law inforcement.

  8. 8.

    Jake

    December 12, 2006 at 2:40 pm

    Corporations that study consumer behavior have millions of patterns that they can draw upon to profile their typical or ideal consumer.

    Speaking in a purely hypothetical sense, it seems the best way to test pdm as a crime prevention tool (v. criminal apprehension) would be to run it on a common crime. If it can’t catch a rapist it won’t catch a terrorist. And this Admin’s already told us we need to surrender our rights to be safe…

    If a bomb-carrying terrorist enters a subway station and sees the cops doing searches, he’ll just leave and walk two blocks to the next station where there aren’t any cops.

    This reminds me of the announcements they used to run in DC’s metro system. Riders were encouraged to be on the look out for people behaving in a “suspicious manner,” Uh…yeah. Where do I start?

  9. 9.

    TenguPhule

    December 12, 2006 at 2:46 pm

    War is Peace.

    Slavery is Freedom.

    We have always been at war with Oceania.

  10. 10.

    Tsulagi

    December 12, 2006 at 2:56 pm

    Read the linked New York Sun article. Waste of time. Just more Gingrich blowing gas out his ass. Now he wants to take his cowardice international.

    I am so tired of bedwetting assholes like Gingrich preaching you should be constantly pissing in your socks out of fear like them. Their solution to regain bladder control? Whack at the foundations of this country that no terrorist could and call that patriotism. Until the Gay Old Perverts party calls their Gingrichs out for what they are…spineless, gutless cartoon figures…they’re not seeing another vote from me.

    A month or two after 9/11 I saw a program about what actions cities could take regarding threat of terrorism. There were mayors in a discussion from three cities: D.C.; Tel Aviv; and one from another major US city. Not NYC, but I forget which other city.

    Anyway, the mayor from D.C. was saying they needed to put up huge numbers of concrete blast barriers around potential targets. The other US mayor was agreeing and saying in addition widespread random searches were needed and legislation to enable them. The Tel Aviv mayor was smiling and keeping quiet until the two US mayors asked him given Israel’s long experience with terrorism what his city did.

    Tel Aviv mayor said they did nothing along the lines they were proposing. He said it was important to live as normally and openly as possible keeping all their constitutional freedoms because to do otherwise showed terrorists they’d achieved their goal. To terrorize; to live in fear. They weren’t going to give them the satisfaction. Imagine that.

  11. 11.

    ThymeZone

    December 12, 2006 at 3:00 pm

    Their solution to regain bladder control?

    A firm grip on the outflow device?

  12. 12.

    Zifnab

    December 12, 2006 at 3:14 pm

    A firm grip on the outflow device?

    Foley wasn’t molesting patients, he was fighting terror!

    I am so tired of bedwetting assholes like Gingrich preaching you should be constantly pissing in your socks out of fear like them.

    And I seriously doubt that Gingrich has ever actually pissed his socks over terrorism. For starters, he’s not in the Capital building, so I’m sure he feels safer. Add to that fact the number of terror attacks we’ve had in the past year (1) and the number of dead politicians it resulted in (0). That’s when they caught us with our pants down (thanks Bush!) “Turn over your civil rights, live in this cage, and let us milk you for your money” has absolutely nothing to do with keeping people safe from terrorists. Just like “Let’s invade Iraq” has absolutely nothing to do with hunting down Osama.

  13. 13.

    ThymeZone

    December 12, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    War is Peace.

    Slavery is Freedom.

    We have always been at war with Oceania Sunnia.

    Revised.

  14. 14.

    Jake

    December 12, 2006 at 3:45 pm

    Foley wasn’t molesting patients, he was fighting terror!

    Pages? Anyhoo, insert Foley Catheter joke here…

    And I seriously doubt that Gingrich has ever actually pissed his socks over terrorism.

    This, I’m not so certain about. I regularly speak to a nice, level-headed bunch of folks who live in soy and pork country. I’d rate their chances of being fragged by a terrorist attack as being slightly lower than Bush dumping Laura for Osama. And yet, they are terrified that they’ll get blown up by Islamo-baddies. I’ve tried pointing out that the bad guys would first need to find their little town and that would require a detailed map and but it hasn’t seemed to help.

    The Tel Aviv mayor was smiling and keeping quiet until the two US mayors asked him given Israel’s long experience with terrorism what his city did.

    And you just know he was thinking “What a pair of panty-waists.”

  15. 15.

    cleek

    December 12, 2006 at 4:41 pm

    War is Peace.

    Slavery is Freedom.

    Iraq Is A War on Terror

  16. 16.

    ThymeZone

    December 12, 2006 at 5:31 pm

    Iraq Is A War on Terror

    I thought I was kidding before, but this settles it:

    These guys really are just fucking with us.

  17. 17.

    eric

    December 12, 2006 at 5:44 pm

    There is a huge problem with these sort of programs that as far as I know can not be overcome. It is this, there are in fact very few terrorists in the world compared to the number of none terrorist. Given that fact any test to determine if some random person is a terrorist has a high probability of being a false positive.

    Have a look at wikipedia and specifically Bayes’ Theorem.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem#Example_.232:__Drug_testing

    In the example cahnge the word “drug” to “terrorist” and you will get the drift.

  18. 18.

    RSA

    December 12, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    I think (or rather hope) it’s obvious that any general argument that an automated system that identifies terrorists is going to produce a lot of false positives also applies to human judgment in identifying terrorists. Bayes’ Law governs not only computer decision-making but human decision-making as well. As Zifnab points out above, the crux of the issue is how we decide whether someone might be a terrorist, not whether a human or a machine is involved in the decision process.

    Not to mention what we do in response to such an identification. Also leaving aside privacy and civil liberties issues.

  19. 19.

    Zifnab

    December 12, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. I don’t mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.

    He would have prefered Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, but it didn’t test well in focus groups. Also, the name was copyrighted for the next season of 24, and even the White House isn’t ballsy enough to go toe-to-toe with Jack Bauer.

  20. 20.

    Jake

    December 12, 2006 at 6:44 pm

    He would have prefered Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, but it didn’t test well in focus groups.

    I myself favour The War Against Terror.

  21. 21.

    Mike

    December 12, 2006 at 6:56 pm

    Well, the way Bush says it makes more sense and is more truthful (coming from him that is a stretch I know)

    “The War on Terra”

  22. 22.

    Hyperion

    December 13, 2006 at 12:06 am

    When the number of false positives vastly outweights the possible true positives, your data mining is a bloody waste of time.

    the first requirement is high signal-to-noise ratio data.
    the success of financial fraud detection based on pattern recognition is due in part to the high SNR of their data; the amounts/times/places of purchases are known very precisely. however, measuring human behavior behavior is much more error prone. plus which behaviors are key?

    probably too geeky but…a competent model of normal human behavior would allow detection of non-normals (“suspicious”, as Jake said) but would not allow detection of terrorists.

    to detect terrorist behavior, you have to model terrorist behavior, which means having a lot of data on terrorists. and right now we don’t have a sufficient number of “observations”. but i have a feeling that in the future we will.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks

  1. The Moderate Voice says:
    December 12, 2006 at 1:40 pm

    Center of Attention

    Some extra attention to a few Centrist blogs. Some suggested reading material for today:
    Balloon…

  2. From the mouths of babes Evil Conservative Think Tanks « Blog on the Run: Reloaded says:
    December 20, 2006 at 9:38 pm

    […] But I give Cato credit for being (generally) consistent in its libertarian philosophy, and in no area is it more deserving of that credit than in the area of post-9/11 government intrusion in general and data mining in particular. Consider this recent article by Jeff Jonas and Jim Harper (hat tip: Tim F. at Balloon Juice): Though data mining has many valuable uses, it is not well suited to the terrorist discovery problem. It would be unfortunate if data mining for terrorism discovery had currency within national security, law enforcement, and technology circles because pursuing this use of data mining would waste taxpayer dollars, needlessly infringe on privacy and civil liberties, and misdirect the valuable time and energy of the men and women in the national security community. … […]

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - BarcaChicago  - Off the Gunflint Trail/Boundary Waters 8
Image by BarcaChicago (7/11/25)

World Central Kitchen

Donate

Recent Comments

  • Anyway on Fox News Friday Open Thread (Jul 12, 2025 @ 12:09am)
  • NotMax on Friday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 11:53pm)
  • Teresa on Friday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 11:53pm)
  • Teresa on Friday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 11:49pm)
  • pieceofpeace on Friday Night Open Thread (Jul 11, 2025 @ 11:46pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Feeling Defeated?  If We Give Up, It's Game Over

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!