more on more on What if Cat Stevens had flown under a different name?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: L Jean Camp <jean_camp () harvard edu>
Date: September 24, 2004 12:55:16 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] more on more on What if Cat Stevens had flown under a  
different name?


On Friday, September 24, 2004, at 03:57 AM, David Farber wrote:
> Stewart Baker asks a good question: why do so many people (and not just
> on this list) complain about proactive data gathering (such as CAPPS
> II) while simultaneously noting the difficulty in disambiguating names
> without broader context.  I think that the answer to that question goes
> to heart of my unease about CAPPS II and similar efforts.

Steven as always makes excellent points about the potential misuse of  
data. the second problem with the data gathering is that there is  
usually no coherrent threat analysis, so that the data gathering does  
not reduce risk but may in fact prevent effective specific threat  
analysis.

For example, nuclear reactor containment vessels are built so that you  
can fly a (70's era) jet into them without causing a breech. That is a  
design against a threat.

Responses to 9/11 that addressed the threat at hand could have included:
-stronger cockpit doors
-armed pilots
-an armed guard on every flight over a given size

or in terms of data
-specific background checks on people with pilots' licenses

Weak background checks on every passenger are not an effective  
deterrent. The effort put into ineffective deterrents is effort that  
could be put into effective programs.

While I suspect we will detain deadbeat dads when they try to board  
airplanes in the future, if we wanted a system to detect deadbeat dads  
we should have a debate about its value.  Because the identity-based  
systems are not

And ironically Steve's clear and articulate discussion about reasons to  
dislike these systems where everyone is a suspect is met with this:

From: suresh () hserus net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
> For example, somebody called Arnold a "fascist, steroid addled bohunk"  
> in
> http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200409/ 
> msg00030.html and
> then finished up with the "Full Disclaimer" that he was not a democrat.
>
> Does Godwin's law about people losing arguments when they start  
> throwing around
> words like "nazi" and "fascist" apply to IP the way it applies to  
> usenet? :)
Suresh is the one using the word Nazi, and the one simultaneously  
declaring others the problem for "throwing words around" when "losing  
arguments". It is exactly this rhetorical technique, and on IP pretty  
clearly Suresh's side of the argument that was losing, that has been so  
effective at preventing dialogue that could create polices that  
actually counter threats.

Suresh here has used the popular method of attacking his opponents in a  
way that requires them to defend themselves as not crazy attackers (can  
_anyone_ here imagine Steven using these words? He is such a gentleman.  
Don't let the hair fool you.) and declares nonsensically that rational  
arguments back indiscriminate data mining.

Now the intention of Suresh's post  is to assert that the argument that  
dragnets based on insecure identity systems is the "losing" side of the  
argument because he (oh the irony!) doesn't use name calling. This kind  
of rhetorical technique needs to be identified for what it is -  
emotional explosive rhetoric that is not in any way productive or  
rational.

Arguments start with a premise, from which an inference  is drawn and  
then examined, to reach a conclusion. Critiques of identity-based  
systems and indiscriminate data mining have good arguments. Opponents  
have rhetorical flourish.

thanks for your time,
-Jean

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/