Connecting the Dots
We have
unbelievably huge amounts of data about pretty much everything that is getting
generated, stored and tracked. And yet intelligence agencies don’t seem to be
able to put all that data together to nail terrorists before they strike.
Why can’t they
connect the dots, we ask? And in the question lies the answer, according to
some. Huh? Sound very Zen? We use the wrong metaphor (connecting the dots),
then take that metaphor to its logical conclusion (a figure should emerge), and
are surprised when real life doesn’t imitate our childhood books! When put like
that, it does seem pretty stupid, doesn’t it? As Bruce
Schneier wrote:
“In real life, the dots can only be
numbered after the fact…In hindsight, we know who the bad guys are. Before the
fact, there are an enormous number of potential bad guys…The television show "Person of Interest" is fiction, not fact.”
Besides, with so
many “dots”, Schneier says it is very tough to know which dots form the “image”
and which are irrelevant. If you think about it, this would mean that more data
will only make the job even more hard, not less!
Or is there hope
if we shift from humans processing intelligence to letting algorithms do it? After
all, says Chris Anderson:
“Google can translate languages without
actually "knowing" them (given equal corpus data, Google can
translate Klingon into Farsi as easily as it can translate French into
German).”
Scott Adams says
algorithms should be able to find and connect the “right” dots:
“My hypothesis is that science will
someday be able to identify sociopaths and terrorists by their patterns of
Facebook and Internet use.”
If Adams is
right, I guess Google is the most likely company to get there given its
expertise with data everything. In which case, maybe we should join Ashley
Mayer in her prayer:
Comments
Post a Comment