Applying Particle Physics to Solving Terrorism

[INRM]

I saw today in my doctors office (I had an appointment) a magazine which I read.

The magazine was called "Discover Magazine", it was the July/August 2010 issue. On pages 40-43, it discussed a method of using something called a power-law which was used in particle physics to predict trends such as the boom and bust cycles in stock-markets, and also in anticipating and stopping terrorism. The researcher involved was a man named Neil Johnson, who has recently found support from a non-profit organization which works for the DoD called the Mitre Corp.

Now, I'm not opposed to stopping terrorists from killing people, but I'm wondering if this will be used as the backbone of some kind of massive data-mining tool. I have a problem with data-mining because it entails massive surveillance of everybody, which includes American citizens, without warrant, in contravention to the US Constitution's 4th Amendment. Most likely such data-mining technology would end up being used beyond the confines of anti-terrorism, and into traditional law-enforcement, which of course brings me back to the 4th Amendment issue. It is also noteworthy that the purpose, and logical conclusion of data-mining technology is the ability to predict, and stop people for actions they would, at some point in the future, commit: When this attitude becomes the acceptable norm for traditional law-enforcement, it would produce a law-enforcement system akin to "Minority Report".

With that said, I'd like to discuss this issue, and with that as per the rules for discussion on this forum: If you wish to attack the argument, go ahead, do not attack the arguer -- "don't be a dick", in the words of Phil Plait. Additionally, I don't want to hear a single person hurling around the "P" word -- that is, paranoid/paranoia. It would be paranoid if I made this stuff up out of nowhere, it's entirely different when there is actual scientific research into this, and data-mining technology already being-developed/developed/employed in both the private and government sectors.


INRM

 

[Thunder]

sounds pretty paranoid to me.

 

[DC]

i have no clue about it, but it sounds like something from "Numb3rs"

and fearing actual things a good portion to much, like i did with Cheney, is pretty paranoid.

 

[DavidJames]

It would be paranoid if I made this stuff up out of nowhere, it's entirely different when there is actual scientific research into this, and data-mining technology already being-developed/developed/employed in both the private and government sectors.

The paranoia comes up when a person over and over and over and over again, takes something they heard, read or saw, or just made up, and extrapolates it's use to include dire concerns about the government doing something nefarious which impacts safety, privacy, etc., without a shred of evidence (other then possibly the voices in their head) that it is/would/could ever happen.

Then, when it's pointed it, never acknowledges it and usually runs away only to rinse repeat, rinse repeat, rinse repeat.

 

[INRM]

And rather than discuss the merits of the argument, we instead decide to attack the author...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Additionally, I don't want to hear a single person hurling around the "P" word -- that is, paranoid/paranoia.

So only married people can point out that you're paranoid?

This you?

 

[MattusMaximus]

INRM, how about posting a link to reference your OP?

ETA: And why is this in the Politics subforum?

 

[DC]

And rather than discuss the merits of the argument, we instead decide to attack the author...

not an attack, an attempt in helping you.

 

[elbe]

The topic reminds me of this xkcd comic.

 

[Alareth]

 

[MRC_Hans]

I saw today in my doctors office (I had an appointment) a magazine which I read.

The magazine was called "Discover Magazine", it was the July/August 2010 issue.

I'm sorry, but that is a VERY suspicious statement. Do you really want us to believe that you found a magazine in your doctor's waiting room that was only 2 months old??? I smell a conspiracy, here! Maybe it was planted there for you to find.

......

On a slightly more serious note: Data crunching tools can be used or misused, but data remains data. Another way to find data is not a threat, only the data.

So terrorists and criminals should fear more effective data finding.

The rest of us need not worry.

If you do want to limit the use of any data mining tools against YOU, be careful about which kind of data you leave about yourself.

Hans

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm sorry, but that is a VERY suspicious statement. Do you really want us to believe that you found a magazine in your doctor's waiting room that was only 2 months old??? I smell a conspiracy, here! Maybe it was planted there for you to find.

......

On a slightly more serious note: Data crunching tools can be used or misused, but data remains data. Another way to find data is not a threat, only the data.

So terrorists and criminals should fear more effective data finding.

The rest of us need not worry.

If you do want to limit the use of any data mining tools against YOU, be careful about which kind of data you leave about yourself.

Hans

INRM is as paranoid as usual, but this argument smacks of "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide."

 

[drkitten]

And rather than discuss the merits of the argument, we instead decide to attack the author...

Well, since the argument has no merits, what do you suggest we do instead?

 

[INRM]

Mattus Maximus,

INRM, how about posting a link to reference your OP?

I don't have the magazine article, I wasn't going to swipe it from my doctors office. That's why I wrote down the general idea of it, and cited the pages in which the article is mentioned. I figure one of you guys would have the magazine.


DC,

not an attack, an attempt in helping you.

If you really wanted to help me, you would actually discuss the issue rather than accuse me of having a mental illness. Regardless, you need not reply as I have added you, as well as Thunder, and David James to my ignore list.


Alareth,

That's exactly how I feel.


MRC_Hans,

On a slightly more serious note: Data crunching tools can be used or misused

Which is exactly my concern

So terrorists and criminals should fear more effective data finding.

The rest of us need not worry.

The problem with that is that if you have no suspicion of wrongdoing, the government has no cause to go around gathering information on you without warrant on some kind of massive fishing expedition.


Quixote Coyote,

this argument smacks of "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide."

It doesn't smack of it, it is the "if you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" argument.


Dr. Kitten,

Well, since the argument has no merits, what do you suggest we do instead?

Why do you think it has no merits?

 

[DC]

I don't have the magazine article, I wasn't going to swipe it from my doctors office. That's why I wrote down the general idea of it, and what pages are used.

You know, almost no discussion has occurred about the article, and all of it has been directed at the person who posted the thread (which happens to be myself).

http://worldmags.net/science_related/810-discover-magazine-julyaugust-2010-true-pdf.html

 

[drkitten]

Why do you think it has no merits?

Because you're completely misunderstanding how data mining (and for that matter, particle physics) works, as well as the purpose behind this sort of technology.

In the OP you wrote:

It is also noteworthy that the purpose, and logical conclusion of data-mining technology is the ability to predict, and stop people for actions they would, at some point in the future, commit

This is simply wrong; the legal system would not permit this without serious changes in the fundamental nature of "evidence" (and particularly "probable cause"). The police have no authority to stop people for actions they are expected to take, only for actions they are in the process of taking or have taken.

But the police can certainly expect certain actions to be taken and be prepared to act immediately when they are. When the local college plays a major football game, the police are prepared to respond to public disturbances -- they've usually juggled staff around to make sure that everyone is on duty the night of the Big Game. They can also predict that the public disturbances are concentrated along Frat Row, so they can make sure that the 2nd Precinct, in particular, is not only fully staffed but overstaffed.

But simply saying that "the big game is on, and Tappa Kegga Bru has always gotten into a fight with Phelta Thi every time this has happened since 1968" is not grounds for the police to do anything about those fraternities on the basis of expected trouble. It doesn't take "data mining" to spot this particular pattern -- every cop on the beat knows is --- but they still can't do anything about it until someone does something this year.

And no amount of technology can get around this legal barrier; technology can't change the law.

Basically, the reason I believe your argument has no merit is because you aren't distinguishing between technological barriers and legal barriers. The legal barriers already exist and are already being enforced, and simply murmuring "data mining" as though it were a magic incantation won't make the rules regarding probable cause to go away. Only the legislature or the courts can do that,... not Mitre.

More shortly, the reason I believe your argument has no merit is because it, like everything else you've posted along this line, is ill-informed paranoiac fantasy.

 

[INRM]

Dr. Kitten,

This is simply wrong; the legal system would not permit this without serious changes in the fundamental nature of "evidence" (and particularly "probable cause").

Well, the government has done all sorts of things in the aftermath of 9/11 that were unconstitutional and have never been held to account for it. Then there's the recent issue (2010) of the FBI trying to push for more legal power to gather data on users from internet service providers without prior court approval.

And no amount of technology can get around this legal barrier; technology can't change the law.

Are you kidding me?

 

[drkitten]

Are you kidding me?

Nope. I am 100% serious that your paranoiac fantasies are paranoiac fantasies. You do not understand the difference between what is technologically possible and what is legal. I can invent whatever I like in my lab, but it takes an act of Congress to change the law.

You really don't seem to understand the differences between arrest and surveillance, either.

 

[DC]

http://worldmags.net/science_related...-true-pdf.html

the article in question can be downloaded here.

 

[marplots]

How did you get from: Terror attacks yield a power-law curve when plotted by time and number of deaths -- to -- data mining?

Are the terror deaths somehow being concealed? It's as non a non sequitur as I've seen in a long time.