Not surprising, the software guys have been saying this for years. The bad news is that this won't kill it, it will be too easy for someone new to come along every 6 months and claim they have new technology that this report didnt count on.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber
To: ip
Sent: 10/8/2008 3:26 PM
Subject: [IP] Nat'l Research Council report on data mining report: it doesn't work
Begin forwarded message:
From: Peter Swire <peter@peterswire.net>
Date: October 8, 2008 2:45:24 PM EDT
To: "dave@farber.net" <dave@farber.net>
Subject: RE: [IP] Nat'l Research Council report on data mining report:
it doesn't work
Dave:
I did not participate in writing the report, but attended the roll-out
event yesterday and have read through most of it.
I really commend this report to your readers. It does high quality
work on data mining and behavioral surveillance.
A particularly strong aspect of the report is a detailed and usable
"framework for program assessment." This essentially takes the
Privacy Impact Assessment required by the E-Gov Act of 2002 and
deepens the process considerably. Although designed specifically for
assessment of federal programs, the step-by-step framework would be
easily usable in private-sector, state, and local programs.
One noteworthy point in the report is that compliance with the "law"
is not enough (in part because the laws lag behind technical
developments). Too often officials defend a bad program by saying "it
complies with all laws." Program assessment also must look at
upholding "values," and the framework sets out a step-by-step way to
do that.
Along with the committee members mentioned, your readers should know
that the lead drafter of the report (who was presented as such at the
event yesterday) was Fred Cate of Indiana University.
I think this is the best single document I have seen for how privacy
issues should be addressed in the federal government going forward.
Peter
Prof. Peter P. Swire
C. William O'Neil Professor of Law
Moritz College of Law
The Ohio State University
Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress
(240) 994-4142, www.peterswire.net
-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 1:34 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Nat'l Research Council report on data mining report: it
doesn't work
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10059987-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&ta
g=2547-1_3-0-20
October 7, 2008 9:30 AM PDT
Government report: Data mining doesn't work well
Posted by Declan McCullagh
The most extensive government report to date on whether terrorists can
be identified through data mining has yielded an important conclusion:
It doesn't really work.
A National Research Council report, years in the making and scheduled
to be released Tuesday, concludes that automated identification of
terrorists through data mining or any other mechanism "is neither
feasible as an objective nor desirable as a goal of technology
development efforts." Inevitable false positives will result in
"ordinary, law-abiding citizens and businesses" being incorrectly
flagged as suspects.
The whopping 352-page report, called "Protecting Individual Privacy in
the Struggle Against Terrorists," amounts to at least a partial
repudiation of the Defense Department's controversial data-mining
program called Total Information Awareness, which was limited by
Congress in 2003.
But the ambition of the report's authors is far broader than just
revisiting the problems of the TIA program and its successors.
Instead, they aim to produce a scholarly evaluation of the current
technologies that exist for data mining, their effectiveness, and how
government agencies should use them to limit false positives--of the
sort that can result in situations like heavily-armed SWAT teams
raiding someone's home and shooting their dogs based on the false
belief that they were part of a drug ring.
The report was written by a committee whose members include William
Perry, a professor at Stanford University; Charles Vest, the former
president of MIT; W. Earl Boebert, a retired senior scientist at
Sandia National Laboratories; Cynthia Dwork of Microsoft Research; R.
Gil Kerlikowske, Seattle's police chief; and Daryl Pregibon, a
research scientist at Google.
<snip>
DISCLAIMER:
E-mail Confidentiality/Proprietary Notice: The information contained in this transmission may be proprietary and subject to protection under the law. The message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, distribution or copying of the message is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the material from any computer. Thank you.
