US Government Admits: Data Mining For Terrorists Doesn't Work

Studies

from the oops dept

Over the last few years, you probably have noticed multiple attempts by state and federal government agencies to collect more data on people and to share that data more widely. This is troubling for a variety of reasons, often having to do with privacy and questions concerning the quality of data, but those concerns are almost always pushed aside by claims that this data is necessary for fighting terrorism. There’s this myth out there that if we just had more data, somehow we’d be able to stop terrorists. The problem is that this is untrue. More data often makes it even harder to find the important data, and now a detailed government report has basically confirmed that data mining doesn’t help in finding terrorists.

The report was put together by a bunch of well-respected academics, industry insiders and law enforcement officials on behalf of the National Research Council, and finds that the idea of plugging all this data into a machine and popping out terrorist identities is a myth. The report then lists out a variety of recommendations, concerning the use of any data mining systems, and how to make sure that individual privacy is protected. One key finding that will never be implemented: when using any such system, systematic reviews should be done to see if the systems are actually effective. If there’s one thing we’ve seen with government programs over the years, such attempts to actually review something they’ve put in place to see if it actually worked are almost never done.

Filed Under: data mining, government, research, terrorism

Dueling Headlines On The Online Ad Market: Half-Full Or Half-Empty

News You Could Do Without

from the depends-on-who-you-read dept

I just saw a bunch of headlines fly by and the contrast in them seemed worth noting. Here are just a few, with a brief intro based on whether it’s a glass half-full headline or a glass half-empty headline:

• Good News!: U.S. Online Advertising Up 15.2%
• Bad News!: US Online Ad Growth Slows in 2008’s First Half
• Good News!: Online ad revenue strong first half of 2008: What about the second half?
• Bad News!: As we fill tanks, growth in Net ads slows
• Good News!: Search-ad revenues grow amid market malaise
• Bad News!: Online Ad Growth Declines in First Half 2008
• Good News!: Internet marketing sees “incredible” spending increase

The most accurate may be from the AFP, who notes: Internet advertising revenue up but slowing, and the LA Times: Internet advertising grows slightly, but analysts worry about the future. Basically, the numbers are still up but at a slower pace than in the past. How you interpret that, apparently, depends on whether you’re fundamentally an optimist or a pessimist. It seems pretty clear that there’s still plenty of money heading into the online advertising world — and it was going to plateau at some point. You can’t keep up ridiculous growth levels at all times, especially when the broader economy runs into trouble. Plus, the fact that a healthy percentage of online advertising was tied to the mortgage/loan/financial services industry — you’d have to expect some slowing of growth. No matter what you believe the future holds for the online ad market, you have to admit the juxtaposition of headlines is rather amusing.

Perhaps much more interesting, however, is this analysis of what happened to the advertising market during the Great Depression. It found that while some companies shied away from advertising, the ones that did well focused in on more effective advertising, which worked wonders. So the advertising market itself didn’t collapse, it just got more focused, and those who used it wisely ended up doing quite well.

Filed Under: online advertising, optimism, pessimism

Apple Forgets About the Moron In A Hurry Test, Threatens School With An Apple In Its Logo

Legal Issues

from the comparing-apples-and-oranges dept

It was just a few years ago when Apple used the moron in a hurry test to defend itself against a trademark suit, but their own legal department seems to have forgotten about it already. Apple has sent a cease and desist letter to the Victoria School of Business and Technology for the use of a blue and green apple element in their logo. The Canadian school has created a comparison page on their website in an attempt to highlight the differences between the logos, hoping to dissuade Apple from launching a lawsuit by building public support. The page also contains the legal correspondence to date, including a letter in which the school’s president asks if Apple is “suggesting that anyone using any variation of an apple for technology education related use is infringing on Apple’s trademark.”

The legal question is really about consumer confusion, as the Canadian Supreme Court has understood in the past. Trademark law doesn’t grant the holder an exclusive right over every use of a mark, just the right to prevent confusing or misleading use of it. The school is a technology school, but they’re also a school — an apple is a pretty common symbol for education. It seems like “even a moron in a hurry” would recognize the difference between the two logos, especially since the acronym “VSBT” is part of the school’s. The real problem here seems to be the requirement of trademark law that the holder of a mark actively polices its use. This requirement encourages these sorts of cease and desist letters, even if it seems like a comparison between apples and oranges.

Filed Under: logo, moron in a hurry, trademark
Companies: apple

If You Really Want To Understand How The Financial Crisis Happened…

Wall Street

from the listen-here.. dept

In my initial post on the financial crisis, I suggested listening to an older episode of the radio program This American Life, where they described how the mortgage bubble happened, called “The Giant Pool of Money.” It’s a great way for non-financial types to understand the basic issues involved in the mortgage industry and how things spun out of control. I also mentioned that the guys who did that show have been working on a daily blog/podcast for NPR called Planet Money, which is also fantastic. They also put together yet another show for This American Life this past weekend to explain what happened over the last few weeks and why it is a Really Big Deal, rather than a situation where we should just “let the banks fail.” I finally got a chance to listen to it, and it’s great. It’s called Another Frightening Show About the Economy, and it gets into even greater detail, peeling backing the complicated onion of our financial system, layer by layer, in a way that non-financial types should mostly understand. It is simplified — no doubt — but it’s by far the best explanation I’ve heard anywhere. If you’re trying to understand concepts like leverage, credit default swaps and the commercial paper market, go take a listen. If you already listen/read Planet Money, there are some repeat clips, as well as some new ones, and the whole show pulls a lot of stuff together from the last couples weeks of Planet Money.

Filed Under: financial crisis, this american life

If The Google-Yahoo Deal Is Bad For Advertisers Or Publishers, Isn't That Just An Opportunity?

Overhype

from the what's-the-problem? dept

I recognize that in times of financial crisis, it may seem more difficult than ever to imagine unique and innovative opportunities cropping up — but it’s often in such times that the most innovative businesses are formed. How quickly we forget, for instance, that Google’s own business model was formed during the barren years following the last dot com bubble burst. Yet, for some reason, people seem to think that today’s offerings are the be-all and end-all of innovation. That’s why we get these articles worrying about how a Google-Yahoo ad deal will be bad for advertisers and publishers. Yet, there’s little evidence to actually support that. The article linked above cites the easily disproved anecdote from the NY Times last month about one guy who had a spammy site that Google punished. That was the guy’s own fault, not Google’s.

But, really, the most important point ignored in most of these discussions is that if Google really does make ad prices higher and share less with its AdSense publisher partners, that would create a huge opportunity for others, whether large incumbents or small startups, to step into that breach. If I had to bet, I’d say that there are already companies working on solutions that are more interesting and more valuable than Google’s advertising plays. There are companies who are recognizing that “advertising” is not necessarily the best model, and they’re working on better solutions that won’t even seem like advertising at all — but will start to take advertising dollars away from traditional ad companies. Just as Microsoft couldn’t see the threat of Google for many years, Google won’t even notice these companies on its radar, and while everyone’s fretting a Google “monopoly” in search ads, the next revolution will be bubbling up somewhere else entirely.

Filed Under: advertising, antitrust, monopolies, search
Companies: google, yahoo

Apparently The Financial Crisis Is The Fault Of Flickering Computer Screens

Say That Again

from the say-what-now? dept

From Paul Kedrosky we find one of the most idiotic theories on where the whole financial crisis came from, out of a laughably stupid interview with author Tom Wolfe. Apparently, the problem wasn’t complex securities, massive leverage, unsupportable subprime mortgage giveaways or anything of the sort. No sir. It was all those flickering screens on computers that make financial types not want to pay attention:

The whole thing, starting with the subprime, is the fault of the computer. I was just talking to a banker the other day, and not that long ago, 20 years ago, an investment banking house, let’s say, Lehman Brothers, when it got a package of mortgages, they would go through every mortgage, every single one, and they’d throw out the ones that just seemed absurd, they just wouldn’t accept them. Things used to arrive on paper. Today things arrive on a screen, and a screen is back lit, and one of the biggest pains in the neck is trying to read something dully written and complicated on a computer screen. It will drive you nuts — I mean, try it sometime. Now they say, “Oh, to hell with it,” and they just accept the whole package. And if it hadn’t been for that, they’d be going over each loan. What’s happened is the backward march of technology.

So, now you know.

Filed Under: blame, computers, financial crisis, tom wolfe

Australian Artists To Get Paid Multiple Times For Their Artwork

Legal Issues

from the wouldn't-that-be-nice dept

We’ve discussed in the past how various countries have been putting in place a ridiculous resale right for artists, that allow them to collect a royalty every time their artwork is sold. In other words, this removes the important right of first sale, that says when someone buys a piece of artwork, they actually own it. Instead, these “resale rights” let various artists collect a “royalty” every time the art is resold. That would be like saying you need to pay Honda a royalty after you sold your used car. Reader madlep points out that Australia has now gone down the same road and instituted a 5% fee on any resold artwork for the artist.

The Arts Minister who supported this is apparently Peter Garrett, who some of you may recognize as the lead singer of the popular rock band Midnight Oil (who I saw in concert many, many years ago). He claims that: “It’s a really, really good day for Australia’s artists,” but that betrays a rather troubling lack of understanding of basic economics. Adding this resale right, actually serves to significantly depress the market for these artists that he’s supposedly trying to protect. Because any buyer now knows that there’s an additional tax on any resale, meaning that they’re less willing to purchase in the first place (or only interested in purchasing for a lower price). It also makes them a lot less willing to sell the piece, because the selling price now needs to be even higher. On top of this, it will encourage more sales to be to foreign countries, where this “right” does not apply.

Garrett is also confused in saying: “Why should artists not have had the opportunity for some copyright protection of their work, or equivalent rights that writers, for example, have?” There’s a very easy answer to that. Copyright protection is designed to deal with the issues of copies, not the original works. When it comes to these artists, they’re selling original works. And, when I put my old Midnight Oil tapes and CDs up for sale, I’m certainly hoping that Garrett doesn’t expect to get paid again for them. That would just be silly. He already received the money when I purchased them originally — just as these artists received their money when their artwork was purchased.

Filed Under: artists, australia, economics, first sale, midnight oil, peter garrett, resale rights

Disney Used Anonymous Online Quotes In Ads

Culture

from the as-good-as-made-up dept

You’ve all seen movie advertisements that include snippets of glowing quotes from critics. “Marvelous!” “Best Movie of the Year!” etc. There’s been some controversy about these quotes in the past. There was an investigation into studios taking movie critic quotes completely out of context, and even a lawsuit against Sony Pictures for making up a critic and his quotes for movie ads. It appears that Disney has now been caught trying out a new tactic: using quotes from anonymous internet commenters on IMDB. These “commenters” could be, for example, Disney employees, but go under usernames like “Theedge-4” and “Mjavfc1.” Apparently, that’s good enough for Disney to quote them in their ads. While there’s something to be said for tapping into a wider group of folks than just the big name “professional” movie critics and reviewers, this one seems pretty questionable and open to abuse — especially given the industry’s documented history of made up reviews.

Filed Under: ads, critics, online reviews, quotes, reviewers
Companies: disney