On 10/02/13 20:47, Nick M. Daly wrote:
> In developing this product, Raytheon seems to make two fundamentally > flawed assumptions: > > 1. That people never make invalid interpretations of the data. Read up > on Type I errors for the details: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors I just wrote a blog the other day giving some concrete examples of these types of `errors' happening as a consequence of electronic surveillance in Australia: http://www.pocock.com.au/fosdem-looking-for-freedom Now that they've identified a doctor and a pregnant women as `security threats', what next? Maybe some nuns? Just don't look forward to the day when they start feeding this `intelligence' into their drones and putting them on auto-pilot. -- Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password at: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
