Why Requiring Social Networks To Monitor Posts To Spot Terrorists Will Make It Even Harder To Catch Them
from the false-positives dept
Last week we wrote about how the UK government was clearly signalling it wanted social networks to start monitoring users' activity for tell-tale signs of terrorist intentions -- without, of course, worrying about how that might be done. Now, James Ball in the Guardian has put together a great summary of why that approach cannot possibly work.
He runs through various ways Facebook, Twitter and the rest might try to spot potential terrorists before they acted -- for example, by using keywords, lists of suspicious sites, social graphs etc. But one feature automated systems all share is that to avoid the risk of letting individuals slip through the net, the criteria for flagging up people have to be loose. And that, inevitably, means there will be false positives:
However sophisticated these systems are, they always produce false positives, so if you are unlucky enough to type oddly, or to say the wrong thing, you might end up in a dragnet.
Here's what that would mean in practice:
Data strategist Duncan Ross set out what would happen if someone could create an algorithm that correctly identified a terrorist from their communications 99.9% of the time -- far, far more accurate than any real algorithm - with the assumption that there were 100 terrorists in the UK.
Requiring social networks to bring in any kind of automated monitoring -- the only kind that is feasible given the huge volume of posts involved -- will simply cause the intelligence agencies to be swamped with a huge number of false leads that will make it impossible to pick out the real terrorists from among the data supplied. In other words, the UK government's plans, if implemented, will just make a bad situation much, much worse.
The algorithm would correctly identify the 100 terrorists. But it would also misidentify 0.01% of the UK's non-terrorists as terrorists: that’s a further 60,000 people, leaving the authorities with a still-huge problem on their hands. Given that Facebook is not merely dealing with the UK’s 60 million population, but rather a billion users sending 1.4bn messages, that's an Everest-sized haystack for security services to trawl.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: false positives, haystacks, liability, monitoring, policing, statistics, terrorists, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's ridiculous and it's killing innocent people of their time and energy they could be using to innovate.
I will... brb... someone's at the front do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By that you mean "until he's locked up for good... or dead" don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
... and if you're with them (Ed Snowden) you might be against them ...
My Venn diagram says 100% of the population might be against them. Are we getting anywhere with this? I can't tell. It looks like we're back to square one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your suspiciously polite communications have been flagged as terroristic threats
As such, armed drones are now being vectored to the wedding recption you are currently atteding. Any attempted denial, by asserting your rights confims your enemy combatant status and authorizes your imeddiate "redaction". Any non-denial also confirms your status as an extremest as well. Now bend over and kiss your ass goodbye citizen!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: your suspiciously polite communications have been flagged as terroristic threats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
make you even more suspicious
what did cardinal richelieu say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then they could just make terrorists happier and less likely to be destructive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excerpt from government-issue Dictionary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Terrorist: male, is old enough to maybe hold a weapon, might have the same height as a known terrorist* and/or is in the radius of the explosion.
*Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Drones (HBO)
http://youtu.be/K4NRJoCNHIs?t=6m37s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ah. The old self-fulfilling prophecy trick! Yeah, that's a good one. If your body's not among the victims', you're innocent. Ergo, ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm certain this approach will work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm certain this approach will work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pile on the Hay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now tell me they are after the terrorists and are trying to stop the 50 plots in the USA or the 40 plots in the UK and the umpteen in France or wherever! what absolute crap!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anti-terror, anti-piracy, it's a never ending uphill battle. Some involved are simpletons who believe that they're making a difference, some are fully cogniscent of their permanent job position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anti-terror, anti-piracy, it's a never ending uphill battle. Some involved are simpletons who believe that they're making a difference, some are fully cogniscent of their permanent job position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait....I have an idea.
What's the best reasonable expectation for an algorithm to pull? 80%? 90%? 60%?
Even if it's 80%. Let's let Facebook implement the system. And Google. And LinkedIn. Ok. Now Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram...
Let's flag...
237 Million People (at least) as terrorists.
Let's flag as many people and give them absolutely as many messages as we can muster until they give up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Waste of effort
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Waste of effort
Therefore the general public is the enemy of the government and is to be treated accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait....I have an idea.
Sorry, it sounds cool but I can't help. I've just been invited to join a bunch of guys who're out to *take down a dictator* in Syria! Woohoo, what fun it'll be. I'll try to check in from time to time with progress reports.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another security theater element
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luckily, Math Is Only A Theory
As the old saying goes, theres lies, theres damned lies, and then theirs statistics. You CANT prove that monitoring wont work, because you CANT PROVE A NEGATIVE. Simple logic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Luckily, Math Is Only A Theory
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, we're just not going to be able to do this with computers.
And this explains the problem of a USA dragnet system in the US. Only 0.1% false positives in the US is 320,000.
That's a lot of SWAT raids on innocent houses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, we're just not going to be able to do this with computers.
Dig deep enough(with say, and this is just a random example, a huge database of information scooped up indiscriminately), and you could probably find a charge to put just about anyone behind bars with, or at least something big enough to threaten them into a plea deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, we're just not going to be able to do this with computers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social Marketing for Small Websites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Making sites like this a breeding ground for terrorists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no real terror threat
Research research research.
Don't blame a hammer, blame the one wielding it.
We're being duped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]