Web lists-archives.com

Re: MetaData

On 2017-03-14 04:00, Daniel wrote:
On 13/03/2017 1:57 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
On 3/12/2017 4:04 AM, Daniel wrote:
On 12/03/2017 6:53 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:


like vacation pictures directly from my iPhone to Facebook.  The
downside of this is that the images are greatly reduced in
quality/resolution, and have the metadata stripped from them.

and, I'm guessing, not just your's, Ron!

Not sure just what you mean.  I load the images from my phone to
Facebook, and, yes, all uploaded photos are stripped of their metadata
by Facebook to prevent stalkers from finding people because they forgot
to strip their GPS data from their images.

Some time ago, the Australian Government legislated for all Australian
ISP's to have to hold e-mail metadata for at least two years, so
yesterday I asked my ISP, via ChatZilla, if that law was now in force ....

[18:21]	ISP		Yes, that is law. And it's WAY WAY WAY more than merely email.
[18:22]	Me		Oh!! O.K., should I be really, really, worried??
[18:25]	Me		By your "more than merely email" are you suggesting nntp
and/or http and/or ftp?
[18:27]	ISP		yes, no and yes. (and more)

So, Big Brother is definitely out there!

Saw an intersting comment, can't recall where, maybe The Register: the age of Big Ddata has shown up a serious problem: even with AI search algorithms; a) you still need humans at some stage to decide whether the data the algorithm tosses up is "significant";
b) the human has to decide what that significance is. Since almost all the data has significance if and only if you already have some idea of whether and what kind of nefariousness is being planned, that's very difficult. Most of the significant data isn't recognised as such until after the event. Eg, the Boston marathon bombers, who were under surveillance. But so were thousands (tens of thousands?) of other people, almost all of which did (and will do) nothing at all.

It's the effect of error rate and incidence rate. A medical screening test whose error rate is greater than the incidence rate will always tag up many more false positives than true ones. In medicine, you can usually use a second or third test to find the true cases. That's not so in intelligence, which has basically only one test: "This doesn't smell right". AI algorithms have a lower error rate than a human, but it's still higher than the incidence rate.

Have a good day,

Wolf K.
It's called "opinion" because it's not knowledge.
general mailing list