Re: [Phys-l] NASA versus Bayes

[Jack Uretsky <jlu@hep.anl.gov>]

Hi all-
	While I do not mean to argue in favor of surveillance, I object to 
specious argument.  The quoted article, apparently based upon no data 
whatsoever and using self-serving speculative statistics, argues (in 
part):
> No matter how sophisticated and super-duper are NSA's methods for
> identifying terrorists, no matter how big and fast are NSA's
> computers, NSA's accuracy rate will never be 100% and their
> misidentification rate will never be 0%. That fact, plus the extremely
> low base-rate for terrorists, means it is logically impossible for
> mass surveillance to be an effective way to find terrorists. . .


	The operative word here is "effective".  That word covers such a 
multitude of unknowns, that the stated conclusion is a non-sequitur.  In 
particular, the author of the quote does not, as far as I can see, give us 
a clue as to what his threshold for "effective" might be.  Bernard is 
simply quoting irrational propaganda that is no more persuasive than the 
administration's unsupported statement that the program is "necessary". 
In fact, it is less persuasive, because there are patriotic Americans who 
will "leak", if necessary, improper uses of surveillance program.
						Regards,
							Jack
--
"Trust me.  I have a lot of experience at this."
		General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
		just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley