The Fear of Terrorism
by Sean Gonsalves
from CommonDreams.com
(TM note: a theoretical 99% detection rate is just that...theoretical. In the real world, the detection rate would be much less.)
On the positive side, if there were 1,000 terrorists inside the country, as this piece hypothesizes, we would be picking them up on a regular basis. Instead, what the gov't is finding is a bunch of half-baked plots such as to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, or similar 'conspiracies' that seem to involve FBI baiting or entrapment of the dim-witted and unstable. In other words, 1,000 terrorists is way too high, in my opinion.)
Thanks to Temple University math professor John Allen Paulos, it can be demonstrated mathematically why the threats to our civil liberties should be of more concern than terrorism threats.
Paulos’ approach to terrorism draws on probability theory and a bit of common sense, specifically, on “the obvious fact that the vast majority of people of every ethnicity are not terrorists.”
Imagine a near-perfect, information gathering and interpretation system that could identify terrorists and stop them before the act of terrorism is committed. Because no system is perfect, Paulos’ system is assumed to be 99 percent accurate. And, of course, for this near-perfect terrorist fly-trap to be really effective it would also have to be able to correctly identify nonterrorists 99 percent of the time.
Such a system would only catch terrorists, right?
“Well, no,” Paulos wrote in an analysis for the LA Times back in 2003. It bears repeating, as the terrorism-centered presidential campaign season heats up, brought to you by Fear Inc.
Paulos applies the near perfect data-mining numbers to a country about the size of America - a nation of 300 million in which 1,000 “future terrorists” lurk among the citizenry.
With a 99 percent detection rate, the system will identify 990 of 1,000 future terrorists. Pretty good.
(Continued here.)
from CommonDreams.com
(TM note: a theoretical 99% detection rate is just that...theoretical. In the real world, the detection rate would be much less.)
On the positive side, if there were 1,000 terrorists inside the country, as this piece hypothesizes, we would be picking them up on a regular basis. Instead, what the gov't is finding is a bunch of half-baked plots such as to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, or similar 'conspiracies' that seem to involve FBI baiting or entrapment of the dim-witted and unstable. In other words, 1,000 terrorists is way too high, in my opinion.)
Thanks to Temple University math professor John Allen Paulos, it can be demonstrated mathematically why the threats to our civil liberties should be of more concern than terrorism threats.
Paulos’ approach to terrorism draws on probability theory and a bit of common sense, specifically, on “the obvious fact that the vast majority of people of every ethnicity are not terrorists.”
Imagine a near-perfect, information gathering and interpretation system that could identify terrorists and stop them before the act of terrorism is committed. Because no system is perfect, Paulos’ system is assumed to be 99 percent accurate. And, of course, for this near-perfect terrorist fly-trap to be really effective it would also have to be able to correctly identify nonterrorists 99 percent of the time.
Such a system would only catch terrorists, right?
“Well, no,” Paulos wrote in an analysis for the LA Times back in 2003. It bears repeating, as the terrorism-centered presidential campaign season heats up, brought to you by Fear Inc.
Paulos applies the near perfect data-mining numbers to a country about the size of America - a nation of 300 million in which 1,000 “future terrorists” lurk among the citizenry.
With a 99 percent detection rate, the system will identify 990 of 1,000 future terrorists. Pretty good.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home