Home - Viewing one post
Inside the NSA matrix: What can they learn?
|Anyone concerned about privacy might read James Banford's cover story in Wired: Inside the Matrix. It puts together the elements of the coming total information awareness state--but with one big missing piece.
pieces he describes include 1) an enormous new National Security Agency
datacenter in Utah that will store virtually all of our communications
and digital musings, and 2) ultra-powerful supercomputers designed to
crack the cryptography protecting much of that information. So
eventually, the thinking goes, the NSA will be able to read our
communications, study our pictures, and trace our patterns backwards in
time. Theoretically, they'll be able to profile each one of us: What we
say, where we go, who we hang around (and even sleep) with.
one his chief former NSA source tells him, holding his thumb and
forefinger close together, " We are, like, that far from a turnkey
Now, the missing piece. Nowhere in the
article do we learn how the NSA will actually make sense of all of this
data, especially for counter-terrorism. What are the patterns of
potential terrorists? This is something I grappled with in The Numerati.
I went to Jeff Jonas for insights. His point was that this type of information is valuable once you are focused on a suspect, but that you cannot hope to find potential suspects by datamining exabytes of phone calls and e-mails. He called that "boiling the ocean."
The trouble is that while the government may have detailed information about hundreds of millions of taxpayers and an equal number of drivers, they have the historical records on only a relative handful of terrorists. What is it about the patterns of those terrorists that they might be able to find in the collected communications of the entire planet earth? That is the unanswered question in the Wired story. And I would suspect that that's because there is no answer.
So then, assuming that the NSA can crack these troublesome codes, what can they do with all of this data? Well, they can trace the people they actually suspect of crimes. But theoretically, they could do that without including the rest of us. Of course, they could (and probably will) continue to hunt for the patterns of potential terrorists, though the prospects don't look too promising.
It might be more fruitful to focus datamining on well established patterns, and on crimes that more of us commit, like tax evasion. If that happens, the small coterie of privacy advocates worried about the turnkey totalitarian state will quickly gain millions of angry supporters.
RT @marthagabriel: "It is possible to store the mind with a million facts and still be entirely uneducated."
-- Alec Bourne #quote #goodmor…
follow me on twitter
Kirkus - Kirkus Reviews
Andrew Dunn - Bloomberg News
Culture Mob - Dan Sampson
Shelfari (Amazon) - Tom Nissley
read more reviews
My horrible Superbowl weekend, in perspective
- February 3, 2014
My coming novel: Boosting human cognition
- May 30, 2013
Why Nate Silver is never wrong
- November 8, 2012
The psychology behind bankers' hatred for Obama
- September 10, 2012
"Corporations are People": an op-ed
- August 16, 2011
Wall Street Journal excerpt: Final Jeopardy
- February 4, 2011
Why IBM's Watson is Smarter than Google
- January 9, 2011
- October 3, 2010
The coming privacy boom
- August 17, 2010
The appeal of virtual
- May 18, 2010
My next book: IBM's Jeopardy mission
- March 22, 2010
- November 12, 2009