Piper Treece's weblog

As noted in Crazy Technologies, innovations are very sci-fi-esq these days. So why isn’t law enforcement more readily using these systems? While I am admittedly against a surveillance state and still believe that face recognition is extreme and totally against my civil liberties (I mean what if I have a bad makeup day?), there seem to be endless arguments against using technologies in law enforcement. The ‘bad guys’ aren’t being biased why should we? In regards to cyber-crime, it is incredibly difficult to trace and determine who the perpetrators are. The exact tools and techniques involved in a discussion regarding safeguarding of computers or how to trace computer intruders is far beyond my knowledge base, so I will leave those arguments to the more technically savvy.
Instead, I’ll turn my attention to an information technology which has been debated about for sometime. I am talking about data-mining again. Those against using data-mining says that it is an infringement upon civil liberties, those pro-DM say an argument means we are sacrificing security. I am still a bit on the fence. But, the privacy advocates make a good point, and saying this from someone who has a high respect for high research, why use something that is faulty?

Here seem to be the big complaints against data-mining:
1. Mass databasing of personal information – as exemplified by the failed ‘Total Information Awareness’ Act, it would require those in the US to register all viable information about themselves. Ok, that would be somewhat creepy, so the mass database of information can be avoided. There will probably be a way to cross search government and private databases in a few years anyway.
2. Lack of Theory – Privacy advocates argue that law enforcement and other governmental analysts that employ data-mining techniques to sift through mass amounts of information do not base their searches, which often use algorithims, in theory. This is a problem. Because what is driving the searches expect perhaps investigator bias or stereotypes? And how can we ensure these searches are valid?
3. False Positive High Return – This issue is actually perpetuated by problem #2. When searches are done and they return results which are ‘false positive,’ meaning that someone was flagged as ‘terrorist’ when really they are not, can have a lot of problems. Because there is no theory behind searches, false positive rates are extremely high when the current data-mining techniques are employed.

Thus, how to fix this problem? 1. Forget about the database. 2. Build Theory 3. Test theories to reduce false positives – refine theory.

Posted by Piper at 05:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sinrod and Reilly efficiently state the real quandary of affairs:

What is cyber-crime? Law enforcement experts and legal commentators are divided. Some experts believe that computer crime is nothing more than ordinary crime committed by high-tech computers and that current criminal laws on the books should be applied to the various laws broken, such as trespass, larceny, and conspiracy. Others view cyber-crime as a new category of crime requiring a comprehensive new legal framework to address the unique nature of the emerging technologies and the unique set of challenges that traditional crimes do not deal with: such as jurisdiction, international cooperation, intent, and the difficulty of identifying the perpetrator.

I am half and half on this issue and understand why there must be debate. Like the Pew Institute’s Internet & American Life Project has shown through various forms of extensive research the Internet seems to just be another area where all human behavior is mimicked from the real world. Online activities and behaviors – both the positive and the negative – mimic real world activities and behaviors. Thus, fraud is equivalent to cyber fraud, viruses are equivalent to burglary, and sniffers are equivalent to theft. In this sense, criminal law as it stands should be sufficient to deal with these issues. However, is a denial of service attack aimed at threatening public health and safety, such as in the case of U.S. v. Unnamed Juvenile, where a teenager ‘disabled a key telephone company’s computer servicing the Worcester airport…vital services to the FAA control tower were disabled for six hours’ which caused financial damage as well as threatened the lives of airplane passengers and personnel equivalent to attempted murder? If it is, the courts do not punish it the same way. Likewise, in cases of straight up fraud or theft using pre-established law may be the best way to prosecute such offenses. It would certainly expedite the debate on such things while allowing for attention to be focused on the more complicated and pressing issues such as the above noted case.

Additionally, I think the advent of the Internet has brought upon new issues. As previously discussed in an early post – What if our culture is changing – this means cyber-threat permeates many more levels not only in cyberspace but also offline and these issues may need to be brought into consideration and should certainly be thought about. Defining cyber-threat/cyber-crime and the potential implications of the Internet’s proliferation will need to be thoroughly, yet concisely discussed as background material.

Posted by Piper at 03:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While my full understanding of social networks is greatly disadvantaged by my lack of mathematical skills, I still get the six degree theory and like many find it fascinating. Unlike many, though, I advocate that social networking models can be used to determine relationships and may be a key factor which in increasing information technologies utilization in counterterrorism analysis and other group threat relationships.

In a relatively brief article in Science, DJ Watts et al. simply proclaim, “our model suggest that searchability is a generic property of real-world social networks.” Their additional conclusions lead one to believe that relationships can be determined by searching only a few known dimensions. So what? This means if terrorism experts or cyber crime investigators can determine what those similar dimensions are and can determine that they are specific unto the suspect groups/individuals then it should allow for more fruitful data-mining searches by highlighting certain nodes and chains and also decreasing the production of false positives.

While not the focus of my research, another interesting topic to explore would be looking at social networks in comparison to, or in conjunction with the development of organic groups whose organization has been encouraged by the Internet (as read in Johnson’s Two Ways to Emerge; and how to tell the difference between them ). Further, and perhaps time will permit for my examination, of the use of social networking and how leader/individual/group decision making is determined or what other influences can be seen when looking at the many variables involved with development of social networks. Again, hard sciences often have the upper hand in development but there is much importance in incorporating the soft sciences into these new innovations.

Posted by Piper at 06:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Like WarmTouch, LIWC (pronounced ‘Luke’) is an application developed by psychologists. LIWC uses a dictionary to focus on specific words that provide insight into an individual’s cognitive and emotional state. This application is utilized by the FBI behavioral sciences unit to determine emotional changes overtime. Using written or verbal threat samples, this can assist in gauging the likelihood for a threat to commit a violent act or the possibility that they are being successfully deterred using negotiation techniques or offering other alternatives.

LIWC is another example of how behavioral/psychological theory can be utilized in information technologies. While such applications are sparse, their use by FBI investigators speak to their importance. Additionally, if more applications are to be developed or older ones to be improved, the possibilities of social sciences becoming more exact while providing more accurate threat assessment/risk analysis seem very likely.

Posted by Piper at 06:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)