[IP] more on more on What if Cat Stevens had flown under a different name?
Begin forwarded message:
From: L Jean Camp <jean_camp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: September 24, 2004 12:55:16 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on more on What if Cat Stevens had flown under a
different name?
On Friday, September 24, 2004, at 03:57 AM, David Farber wrote:
Stewart Baker asks a good question: why do so many people (and not just
on this list) complain about proactive data gathering (such as CAPPS
II) while simultaneously noting the difficulty in disambiguating names
without broader context. I think that the answer to that question goes
to heart of my unease about CAPPS II and similar efforts.
Steven as always makes excellent points about the potential misuse of
data. the second problem with the data gathering is that there is
usually no coherrent threat analysis, so that the data gathering does
not reduce risk but may in fact prevent effective specific threat
analysis.
For example, nuclear reactor containment vessels are built so that you
can fly a (70's era) jet into them without causing a breech. That is a
design against a threat.
Responses to 9/11 that addressed the threat at hand could have included:
-stronger cockpit doors
-armed pilots
-an armed guard on every flight over a given size
or in terms of data
-specific background checks on people with pilots' licenses
Weak background checks on every passenger are not an effective
deterrent. The effort put into ineffective deterrents is effort that
could be put into effective programs.
While I suspect we will detain deadbeat dads when they try to board
airplanes in the future, if we wanted a system to detect deadbeat dads
we should have a debate about its value. Because the identity-based
systems are not
And ironically Steve's clear and articulate discussion about reasons to
dislike these systems where everyone is a suspect is met with this:
From: suresh@xxxxxxxxxx (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
For example, somebody called Arnold a "fascist, steroid addled bohunk"
in
http://lists.elistx.com/archives/interesting-people/200409/
msg00030.html and
then finished up with the "Full Disclaimer" that he was not a democrat.
Does Godwin's law about people losing arguments when they start
throwing around
words like "nazi" and "fascist" apply to IP the way it applies to
usenet? :)
Suresh is the one using the word Nazi, and the one simultaneously
declaring others the problem for "throwing words around" when "losing
arguments". It is exactly this rhetorical technique, and on IP pretty
clearly Suresh's side of the argument that was losing, that has been so
effective at preventing dialogue that could create polices that
actually counter threats.
Suresh here has used the popular method of attacking his opponents in a
way that requires them to defend themselves as not crazy attackers (can
_anyone_ here imagine Steven using these words? He is such a gentleman.
Don't let the hair fool you.) and declares nonsensically that rational
arguments back indiscriminate data mining.
Now the intention of Suresh's post is to assert that the argument that
dragnets based on insecure identity systems is the "losing" side of the
argument because he (oh the irony!) doesn't use name calling. This kind
of rhetorical technique needs to be identified for what it is -
emotional explosive rhetoric that is not in any way productive or
rational.
Arguments start with a premise, from which an inference is drawn and
then examined, to reach a conclusion. Critiques of identity-based
systems and indiscriminate data mining have good arguments. Opponents
have rhetorical flourish.
thanks for your time,
-Jean
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/