Picking Away at Predictive Programs
October 21, 2016
I read “Predicting Terrorism From Big Data Challenges U.S. Intelligence.” I assume that Bloomberg knows that Thomson Reuters licenses the Palantir Technologies Metropolitan suite to provide certain information to Thomson Reuters’ customers. Nevertheless, I was surprised at some of the information presented in this “real” journalism write up.
The main point is that numerical recipes cannot predict what, when, where, why, and how bad actors will do bad things. Excluding financial fraud, which seems to be a fertile field for wrong doing, the article chases the terrorist angle.
I learned:
- Connect the dots is a popular phrase, but connecting the dots to create a meaningful picture of bad actors’ future actions is tough
- Big data is a “fundamental fuel”
- Intel, PredPol, and Global Intellectual Property Enforcement Center are working in the field of “predictive policing”
- The buzzword “total information awareness” is once again okay to use in public
I highlighted this passage attributed too a big thinker at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law:
Computer algorithms also fail to understand the context of data, such as whether someone commenting on social media is joking or serious,
Several observations:
- Not a single peep about Google Deep Mind and Recorded Future, outfits which I consider the leaders in the predictive ball game
- Not a hint that Bloomberg was itself late to the party because Thomson Reuters, not exactly an innovation speed demon, saw value in Palantir’s methods
- Not much about what “predictive technology” does.
In short, the write up delivers a modest payload in my opinion. I predict that more work will be needed to explain the interaction of math, data, and law enforcement. I don’t think a five minute segment with talking heads on Bloomberg TV won’t do it.
Stephen E Arnold, October 21, 2016
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
