Comments on: Form, not content http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/12/form-not-content/ Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:02:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/12/form-not-content/#comment-478 Anonymous Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:54:40 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=531#comment-478 I don't think that the government needs to invest in mapping social networks or myspace, I think private industry itself will create these mapping tools. Google's greatest asset is the data that it mines, and Google is hard at work extracting value from this data, in the form of pattern recognition, and whatnot. As this technology becomes less expensive, the government could then use these tools. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ecclog" REL="nofollow" TITLE="misschan at gmail dot com">echan</a> I don’t think that the government needs to invest in mapping social networks or myspace, I think private industry itself will create these mapping tools. Google’s greatest asset is the data that it mines, and Google is hard at work extracting value from this data, in the form of pattern recognition, and whatnot. As this technology becomes less expensive, the government could then use these tools. 

Posted by echan

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/12/form-not-content/#comment-477 Anonymous Mon, 26 Dec 2005 20:00:03 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=531#comment-477 sorry about my href's..<br/><br/>1. you can avoid traffic analysis by sending emails using <a HREF="http://mixmaster.sourceforge.net/" REL="nofollow">mixmaster</a> . see also <a HREF="http://www.invisiblog.com/" REL="nofollow">invisiblog</a>.<br/><br/>in principle, we should support these networks by using them even if we have nothing to hide - otherwise merely using these kinds of strong privacy would raise attention.<br/><br/>2. yeah, travelling salesman is overkill. in general, specifying exaactly what they're looking for would yield an intractable problem, but there are lots of good heuristics, especially since the data is pretty noisy anyway. for example, here a paper on <a HREF="http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~dln/papers/link/abstract.html" REL="nofollow">link prediction</a>. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://scrofulous.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">aram</a> sorry about my href’s..

1. you can avoid traffic analysis by sending emails using mixmaster . see also invisiblog.

in principle, we should support these networks by using them even if we have nothing to hide - otherwise merely using these kinds of strong privacy would raise attention.

2. yeah, travelling salesman is overkill. in general, specifying exaactly what they’re looking for would yield an intractable problem, but there are lots of good heuristics, especially since the data is pretty noisy anyway. for example, here a paper on link prediction. 

Posted by aram

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/12/form-not-content/#comment-476 Anonymous Sun, 25 Dec 2005 17:31:13 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=531#comment-476 Actually, traveling salesman problems are impossible to solve in a mathematical sense, but getting reasonably fast, "good" solutions via greedy algorithms is not that difficult. It won't be the BEST, and finding that is hard, but it will be good enough.<br/><br/>Some kind of graph alignment problems are really difficult, but the sort of stuff needed to do this kind of thing is relatively simple - neighborhoods, adjacency, etc. Actually my first paper did something more or less like this.<br/><br/>As with most data-mining or experimentation more generally, the really informative stuff will come from combining relatively independent measures. I.e. overlaying different sorts of contacts (e.g. phone contacts & Friendster contacts) should be extremely informative. But only for people like us... I really doubt al-Qaeda uses Friendster. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> Actually, traveling salesman problems are impossible to solve in a mathematical sense, but getting reasonably fast, “good” solutions via greedy algorithms is not that difficult. It won’t be the BEST, and finding that is hard, but it will be good enough.

Some kind of graph alignment problems are really difficult, but the sort of stuff needed to do this kind of thing is relatively simple - neighborhoods, adjacency, etc. Actually my first paper did something more or less like this.

As with most data-mining or experimentation more generally, the really informative stuff will come from combining relatively independent measures. I.e. overlaying different sorts of contacts (e.g. phone contacts & Friendster contacts) should be extremely informative. But only for people like us… I really doubt al-Qaeda uses Friendster. 

Posted by saurabh

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/12/form-not-content/#comment-475 Anonymous Sun, 25 Dec 2005 12:04:43 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=531#comment-475 Interesting note about the CA constitution.<br/><br/>Actually, Saurabh, I was hoping you could provide some insight into the tractability of the problem. My memory is very foggy, but aren't graphs of networks very difficult to mine and analyze efficiently, unscalably so? The travelling saleperson problem comes to mind. . ..<br/><br/>If everyone's friendster profile winds up as neglected and unkempt as mine, then the FBI is getting wacky information. Random testimonials from people I know almost nothing about mask deep relationships with people I talk to almost every day. The same with email patterns---it seems like some people's practice of mass mailing and replying-to-all would thrown a bit of noise into the data.<br/><br/>It seems less easy to hide the patterns in telephone calls, on the other hand. <br/><br/> <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://ssrdatta.blogspot.com" REL="nofollow" TITLE="sahelidatta at hotmail dot com">Saheli</a> Interesting note about the CA constitution.

Actually, Saurabh, I was hoping you could provide some insight into the tractability of the problem. My memory is very foggy, but aren’t graphs of networks very difficult to mine and analyze efficiently, unscalably so? The travelling saleperson problem comes to mind. . ..

If everyone’s friendster profile winds up as neglected and unkempt as mine, then the FBI is getting wacky information. Random testimonials from people I know almost nothing about mask deep relationships with people I talk to almost every day. The same with email patterns—it seems like some people’s practice of mass mailing and replying-to-all would thrown a bit of noise into the data.

It seems less easy to hide the patterns in telephone calls, on the other hand.

 

Posted by Saheli

]]> By: Anonymous http://rhinocrisy.org/2005/12/form-not-content/#comment-474 Anonymous Sun, 25 Dec 2005 01:04:50 +0000 http://rhinocrisy.org/?p=531#comment-474 Back in the day when it first came out, lots of leftist friends of mine were appalled at how revealing Friendster was about activist networks and consequently refused to sign up for the service, convinced of its utility to the FBI. I don't doubt they're using that information; I'd almost be wroth if they weren't, it's so obvious. <br/><br/><a></a><a></a>Posted by<a><b> </b></a><a HREF="http://rhinocrisy.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="rednblack at alum dot mit dot edu">saurabh</a> Back in the day when it first came out, lots of leftist friends of mine were appalled at how revealing Friendster was about activist networks and consequently refused to sign up for the service, convinced of its utility to the FBI. I don’t doubt they’re using that information; I’d almost be wroth if they weren’t, it’s so obvious. 

Posted by saurabh

]]>