There's no way I can support Ted Cruz because of his NSA position

There's just no way that I can support Ted Cruz. We just can't have a President that doesn't understand that we live in a world of predictive analytics and big data. Cruz said this:

Ted Cruz rejects demands to revive NSA surveillance after San Bernardino

“On the right, there are some who have called for resurrecting the government bulk data collection that existed under the Patriot Act [but] more data from millions of law abiding Americans is not always better data,” Cruz said, in a major national security speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

“Hoarding tens of billions of records of ordinary citizens did not stop Fort Hood, it didn’t stop Boston, it didn’t stop Chattanooga, it didn’t stop Garland and it failed to detect the San Bernardino plotters,” he added.

www.theguardian.com...-64904514

This is jus kooky talk.

This is why I can't support Ted Cruz. It's this lack of understanding that's dangerous. You have to have this data because we're in an age of big data. There's no threat to privacy or liberty because there isn't a human alive that can look at all this data. There will be intelligent algorithms looking at the data so they can find a signal in the noise. The more noise or data the better the signal.

Isis is too good at social media, using apps and smartphones not to have more data in order to do predictive analytics. If you just look at twitter, there's 500 million tweets a day and 200 billion tweets a year. The NSA should have access to every tweet and every Facebook post so intelligent algoritms can go through the data and find a signal. Like I said, there isn't a human alive that can look at all of this data so nobody will be looking at tweets about Modern Family or Empire, it's just more noise that will allow the intelligent algorithms to find a better signal.

The reason why so many companies are looking at machine intelligence and deep learning startups. It's because it's too much data for any human to go through and understand. IBM said this in 2013.

Every day, we create 2.5 quintillion bytes of data — so much that 90% of the data in the world today has been created in the last two years alone. This data comes from everywhere: sensors used to gather climate information, posts to social media sites, digital pictures and videos, purchase transaction records, and cell phone GPS signals to name a few. This data is big data.

The internet of things will take big data to a whole new level. We will in big trouble if we have a President that doesn't undertand the world we live in. It will look like this:



I was thinking about considering Cruz until I heard this backwards thinking.

If that's all that keeps you from supporting Ted Cruz, then I feel sorry for you.

a reply to: Blazemore2000

That's more important than anything right now. If we don't use big data then we're in deep trouble. Already the terrorist have figured out how to use encrypted apps to pass messages that the FBI Director said they still can't see.

You can't have a President that doesn't understand the modern world.

a reply to: neoholographic

Well, not everyone is comfortable with violating the Constitution.

I don't need more security just more liberty.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Blazemore2000

You can't have a President that doesn't understand the modern world.

That includes the last two, at least.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: neoholographic

Well, not everyone is comfortable with violating the Constitution.

I don't need more security just more liberty.

Say that when your children are lying dead in the streets.

It has nothing to do with liberty. 97 to 98% of the data will never be seen by human eyes. It's just more noise that allows the algorithms to find a better signal.

It would just be idiotic not to understand something like this when the terrorist have 6th century mentalities but very modern uses of technology and social media.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Blazemore2000

You can't have a President that doesn't understand the modern world.

That includes the last two, at least.

I agree with that.

Bush and now Obama have both been disasters.

ISIS is not real in the traditional sense. They are a "terrorist" (and I use that word very loosely) group used by the power elite to grab/make headlines and distract the general public from all their wrongdoings.

Like a person once said, there are fewer and fewer "real" humans left. Most "humans" are "controlled", this includes ISIS and ISIL.

I'm with Metallicus on this one.

What ever happened to that 4th amendment anyway?

a reply to: neoholographic

In a perfect world, being able to keep tabs on each every one of us would be a good thing. Law enforcement would only be able to access this data after a crime is committed, and the criminal would always get caught.

But this isn't a perfect world... and I don't trust my current government with that kind of power.

Did the NSA catch the SB attackers ?

Nope.

Did the NSA catch the Tsarnevs' ?

Nope.

Wasn't that the entire point of having the NSA ?

Yep.

The NSA is worthless.

a reply to: neoholographic

Of all of Cruz's kooky talk this ain't it and I agree with him 100%, which never happens.

If memory serves, these terrorists were already under surveillance but the Feds failed to stop them. Spying on my data isn't going to thwart the next attack.

There's a post on ATS were cops are fighting taking a urinalysis as "unconstitutional" Which us mere sheep, have to do on a regular basis. OP, this gets you bent about Cruz? Knee pads and gold chain? Would that be okay with you?

a reply to: neoholographic

I could think of a whole host of reasons not to elect Ted Cruz to anything higher than dog-catcher. Primarily just because the guy is bat-crap crazy!

But mainly, I'm just wondering how his candidacy fits in with the previous GOP position on presidential candidates who were not born in the U.S..

originally posted by: neoholographic

Say that when your children are lying dead in the streets.
.

The fear is strong in this one, watching fox you must not.(yoda voice)

a reply to: neoholographic

All the more reason, as far as I am concerned, to support him even more!

He's right. Massive data collection isn't stopping terrorism, and it is, in fact, unconstitutional. It's warrantless search, in effect. Our online data and telephone data are, in today's word, our "papers".

This might be the only thing I agree with Ted Cruz on. We do not need more data collection.

Wow, that would be just about one of the only things I'd support Cruz on. If the NSA is so good why didn't they stop the SB attacks? Too busy trolling them on FB? Looking at hot women's pics that come through the wire? Letting them get away for their own reasons or trying to catch them?

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: neoholographic

All the more reason, as far as I am concerned, to support him even more!

He's right. Massive data collection isn't stopping terrorism, and it is, in fact, unconstitutional. It's warrantless search, in effect. Our online data and telephone data are, in today's word, our "papers".

This is what I'm talking about. There's just a lack of understanding about big data and predictive analytics. Nobody will be reading your tweets about Keeping up with the Kardashians. When people talk about privacy and liberty as it pertains to this they don't know what they're talking about.

Again, there's no way any human can look at all of this data. For instance twitter has 500 million tweets per day and 200 billion tweets per year. Facebook has 1.5 billion posts per day and 2 trillion posts in it's index. This is why so many companies are investing in machine learning because it isn't possible for a human to go over all of this data. So you have to have intelligent algorithms doing it.

How do you think future medical cures will happen? Through intelligent algorithms going through the data. IBM's Watson is already working with hospitals on things like breast cancer. How do you think it will do this? By looking at a ton of medical records.

You have what's called predictive policing and in some areas it has helped reduce crime by 50%. That's the key word, help. It doesn't solve crime just like it will not stop terrorism. It will help and give investigators better tools and leads.

Predictive policing works with a clustering algorithm. A similar one used to predict aftershocks when a earthquake occurs. This algorithm doesn't stop crime, the Police stop and deter crime. You give the algorithm all kinds of data points on past crimes. The Police never see any of this information. All the Police see is hot spots where the algorithm predicts crimes may occur.

So any nonsense about privacy and liberty is just nonsense. 97-98% of the data in the case of the NSA will never be seen by human eyes. It's just more noise to help the algorithm find a better signal. Here's more:

In 2011 British researchers created a game that simulated a van-bomb plot, and 60 percent of the "terrorist" players were spotted by a program called DScent, based on their "purchases" and "visits" to the target site. The ability of a computer to automatically match security-camera footage with records of purchases may seem like a dream to law-enforcement agents trying to save lives, but it's the kind of ubiquitous tracking that alarms civil libertarians. Although neither the NSA nor any other agency has been accused of misusing the data it collects, the public's fear over its collection remains. The question becomes, how much do you trust the people sitting at the keyboards to use this information responsibly? Your answer largely determines how you feel about NSA data mining.

This was in 2011. A simple algorithm can do facial recognition on people coming in from ME countries with terror ties as refugees or on k-1 visas and the algorithm can then match there movement around the world and then red flags would be raised in a small number of cases. The reason this will not occur is because people will scream about privacy and liberty and they don't have a clue as to what they're talking about. The vast majority wouldn't raise any red flags but the woman who carried out the shooting in San Bernardino would have been flagged. We don't have these things in place because people just don't understand these things.

Every collection platform or source of raw intelligence is given a name, called a Signals Intelligence Activity Designator (SIGAD), and a code name. SIGAD US-984XN is better known by its code name: PRISM. PRISM involves the collection of digital photos, stored data, file transfers, emails, chats, videos, and video conferencing from nine Internet companies. U.S. officials say this tactic helped snare Khalid Ouazzani, a naturalized U.S. citizen who the FBI claimed was plotting to blow up the New York Stock Exchange. Ouazzani was in contact with a known extremist in Yemen, which brought him to the attention of the NSA. It identified Ouazzani as a possible conspirator and gave the information to the FBI, which "went up on the electronic surveillance and identified his coconspirators," according to congressional testimony by FBI deputy director Sean Joyce. (Details of how the agency identified the others has not been disclosed.) The NYSE plot fizzled long before the FBI intervened, but Ouazzani and two others pleaded guilty of laundering money to support al-Qaida.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Ted Cruz has a dangerous view that's stuck in the past. We live in a world where technology and data is growing very fast and we will be sitting ducks if we rely on human intelligence without taking into account that humans can't look at and understand the massive amounts of data that's being produced.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is what I'm talking about. There's just a lack of understanding about big data and predictive analytics. Nobody will be reading your tweets about Keeping up with the Kardashians. When people talk about privacy and liberty as it pertains to this they don't know what they're talking about.

Don't assume that anyone who holds a different position doesn't understand. That isn't the case. By the way, I don't "tweet" at all, and couldn't care less about whoever those K people are. So fail there.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Again, there's no way any human can look at all of this data. For instance twitter has 500 million tweets per day and 200 billion tweets per year. Facebook has 1.5 billion posts per day and 2 trillion posts in it's index. This is why so many companies are investing in machine learning because it isn't possible for a human to go over all of this data. So you have to have intelligent algorithms doing it.

You are missing the point, deliberately, I suspect. The point is that this is a search without a warrant. That is against the Constitution.

originally posted by: neoholographic
How do you think future medical cures will happen? Through intelligent algorithms going through the data. IBM's Watson is already working with hospitals on things like breast cancer. How do you think it will do this? By looking at a ton of medical records.

Medical cures have nothing to do with an invasion of privacy of people's online data. Tossing out scuch distractions only weakens your position further.

originally posted by: neoholographic
You have what's called predictive policing and in some areas it has helped reduce crime by 50%. That's the key word, help. It doesn't solve crime just like it will not stop terrorism. It will help and give investigators better tools and leads.

Oh, the "guilty-because-we-say-so" method? I guess "innocent till proven guilty doesn't matter to you?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Predictive policing works with a clustering algorithm. A similar one used to predict aftershocks when a earthquake occurs. This algorithm doesn't stop crime, the Police stop and deter crime. You give the algorithm all kinds of data points on past crimes. The Police never see any of this information. All the Police see is hot spots where the algorithm predicts crimes may occur.

The police want to arrest people for suspicion, instead of for actual crime. Patrolling is one thing, but guessing that someone is planning a crime, and arresting them, is quite another.

originally posted by: neoholographic
So any nonsense about privacy and liberty is just nonsense. 97-98% of the data in the case of the NSA will never be seen by human eyes. It's just more noise to help the algorithm find a better signal. Here's more:

In 2011 British researchers created a game that simulated a van-bomb plot, and 60 percent of the "terrorist" players were spotted by a program called DScent, based on their "purchases" and "visits" to the target site. The ability of a computer to automatically match security-camera footage with records of purchases may seem like a dream to law-enforcement agents trying to save lives, but it's the kind of ubiquitous tracking that alarms civil libertarians. Although neither the NSA nor any other agency has been accused of misusing the data it collects, the public's fear over its collection remains. The question becomes, how much do you trust the people sitting at the keyboards to use this information responsibly? Your answer largely determines how you feel about NSA data mining.

You assume that only certain sorts of actions will gain attention, and to do this, you have to assume that all in control of such systems are totally honest and above corruption. If you feel tht confident in them, well, that's your problem.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This was in 2011. A simple algorithm can do facial recognition on people coming in from ME countries with terror ties as refugees or on k-1 visas and the algorithm can then match there movement around the world and then red flags would be raised in a small number of cases. The reason this will not occur is because people will scream about privacy and liberty and they don't have a clue as to what they're talking about. The vast majority wouldn't raise any red flags but the woman who carried out the shooting in San Bernardino would have been flagged. We don't have these things in place because people just don't understand these things.

They have this, but investigations that would have likely stopped this attack were halted. There is a thread on that. What you don't seem to understand is that anyone the government doesn't like would be targeted. Have you forgotten the DHS list that was released, against their wishes, that called almost anyone a "potential terrorist"?

originally posted by: neoholographic
Ted Cruz has a dangerous view that's stuck in the past. We live in a world where technology and data is growing very fast and we will be sitting ducks if we rely on human intelligence without taking into account that humans can't look at and understand the massive amounts of data that's being produced.

No, he isn't dangerous. What's dangerous is people thinking that the government knowing every detail of their lives is somehow making them safer. It's a delusion, and it's totally without logic.