No, you think you have, but because you don't understand the base rate theorem you're just talking past me. It's not enough to filter the population down to 100 households. Nothing you do with a filter changes the base rate of terrorist plots, which is extremely low. Profile 100 households, you get 100 false positives. Profile 50 households, you get 50 false positives. The likelihood of any one house you investigate housing an actual plot is always going to be very, very low.
I don't think I could facepalm any harder. What you are basically stipulating is that because pursuing certain leads could be almost always wrong that this would prevent a government department from following up on them? Are you kidding me?
>Nothing you do with a filter changes the base rate of terrorist plots, which is extremely low.
In that case, I imagine the base rate of 'post-successful terrorist act plotting' is higher than 'pre-successful terrorist act plotting,' which would eliminate your argument.
Also, what you would be studying is the TYPE of terrorist activity not total plot numbers e.g. the stages of activity. If a successful terrorist attack was pulled off not to long ago in the past then that would call for an increase in the base rate of the TYPE of plotting. More terrorists would be more invigorated to pursue/look into similar methods as their next plot.
Maybe the cross-section of the plotting-type-pivot is what you could match against?
The simplest way to express my facepalm is: you are tremendously oversimplifying things.
Surely any increase in wannabe-copycat terrorists Googling for items used in recent terrorist attacks would be more than cancelled out by a much larger proportional increase in the much larger group of people that follow the news and don't want to be terrorists also Googling for items used in recent attacks
Filtering to target at high-risk sub-groups - which, among themselves, have different base rates than the general population- is entirely effective.
It is precisely the reasoning under which medical screening - ineffective, generally, due to the base rate - is aimed at, say, "Men Over 50", where the base rate grows sufficiently large to make screening worthwhile.
What trouble do you have with the fact that there aren't 100 terrorist plots in NYC? There might not even be 2 of them. If they're filtering down to 100 visits a week, something close to 99% of the visits are false positives.
tptacek seems hell-bent on not giving the side for which he has no factual data any mindshare at all--there are arguments for that mindset.
As for your filtering observation, yeah, I have no idea if he just mis-stated his position, is using different definitions, or today just can't into math.
One of two possibilities arise from this comment. The first is that you think that there might be many many terrorist plots ongoing at any time. The other is that you don't understand the simple idea of a base rate and how it applies to statistical filters.
It's unfortunate, because that article and the base rate article have some contradictory conclusions--but, the linked article shows its math.
What's really troubling me here though is that you seem unwilling even as a thought experiment to entertain the notion that this sort of behavior could be purposeful by the government. In many, many prior discussions you've held this view, you've advocated for stripping rights, you've advocated for screwing over people scraping public unauthenticated APIs, you've advocated a great many things against the general notion of the public good, of privacy, and of exploration.
Perhaps come down here and--in the name of intellectual honesty--try and understand what exactly has so many of these people bothered. As it is, due to your choice of message and presentation, you often come off as at best aloof and at worst willfully ignorant.
I like how this comment goes from acknowledging that the author didn't know about an extremely basic and fundamental concept of statistics to a whole paragraph of (frankly weird) assertions about my character and beliefs. It's almost gymnastic.
I think one place to start moving forward is to acknowledge that you really have no idea what I do or don't believe.
How would you stack this against the Guardian article that was quoted further down the page?
A spokesman for the FBI told to the Guardian on Thursday that its investigators were not involved in the visit, but that "she was visited by Nassau County police department … They were working in conjunction with Suffolk County police department."
