Let's talk a little bit about "transparency versus public access" and where it's appropriate, and where it obviously isn't. Not long ago, there was an interesting feature in the TV news, a big to do about nothing, where the First Lady Michelle had traveled to Spain, and as she was on her vacation, she was on vacation as a private citizen. Now whereas, people want transparency, one has to ask where privacy must take precedent, and where transparency should be afforded.
Now, you might not think this is a very good example, but when it comes to online social networks, paparazzi, and privacy all these things are really big issues. Recall when Sarah Palin's yahoo email account was hacked by a college student, Obama supporter in TN? Obviously, that crossed the line, but where do we draw the line online?
Okay so, let's get back to the main question here; How Do We Store Online Data without violating personal property, and how do we protect national security without breaches in data, or violations of personal privacy. And if we anonimize all the data for use at a future time, how should we store it for Future Data Mining Without Knowing the Future Questions?
The information and data could be stored by region, time, frequency, and relevance. It must be stored for a multitude of purposes, and we must determine who may obtain the data, who will use the data, and what will they use it for. You see, there are different ways to store the information categories to be displayed in, or various types of tags to assign it to.
Perhaps, all the information can be stored, every bit of it, and a trusted data inquirer who wants to ask the questions, will have to explain their inquiry to an artificially intelligent computer, and it can act like a Supreme Court review on privacy. In other words, if the reason for the information is not good enough, access to that particular information will be denied. And yes it could use constitutional extrapolations, which would be philosophically based on the same analogy as surgeon seizure rules, or Fifth Amendment rights of self-determination.
As if the data itself would be alive, and the artificial intelligent computer would be the judge deciding if the prosecution would be allowed to ask those questions of the computer data system. In this case you could just store all the information you could possibly take in, and not worry about it. Okay so, that is one option; just store all the data, regardless of what it is. Or another option is to store only some data, data you believe to be important for the future, but knowing the whole truth of the past, is not completely known.
This is problematic however due to "selective prosecution" challenges. You see, one of my biggest fears would be information taken at a context, and used to condemn people or character assassinate them, or incriminate them at a trial, or in the mass media in court of public opinion using stored data, using a computer forensic chain of data, selectively gathered.
We know that the media uses this trick early and often, and they do so in often ruining people's lives. We need to be careful with that. It's serious issue. The reality is you cannot trust humans, they have proven throughout history to be a trustworthy, and you don't have to go very far to find inherent corruptness and individuals of the human species. This being my primary reason for suggesting an AI computer system.
The other concept might be to not collect the data at all, because you don't really need the data, and if you have the data available, we all know that it will be abused. Of course, the proof of innocence could also very well be in that same data, you see that point? But, the chances for abuse is far too great when humans are involved. We've had previous Presidential Administrations use IRS data to attack their enemies, and use the FBI to track political opponents. State Governors have used state police to track persons whom they've had disputes with or political adversaries as well. The abuse of power is quite common.
So, under the opposite model, you could say; No Data from Anyone, Agency, Corporation, or Organization maybe collected period; you can't collect it, you can't have it, and you can't use it. That means you can't use it for good or for evil. Some might say that would be unfortunate because a lot of that data can help prevent crimes, it can help better solve the challenges and problems of our society, and it can help artificial intelligence make the best decisions based on the best information.
If we continually make decisions based on lack of information, is this really a smart way to do planning? If on the other hand we have irrelevant information, bad information, or information taken out of context, we will never be able to make any decisions without very unfortunate unintended consequences, which is what is happening now it seems.
At our think tank we talk a lot about this, but we don't do political correctness, and we aren't about to give the human species a free pass on integrity, they don't deserve it, they haven't earned it, and we all know they cannot be trusted.
Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Do-We-Store-Data-for-Future-Data-Mining-Without-Knowing-the-Future-Questions?&id=4867341
Now, you might not think this is a very good example, but when it comes to online social networks, paparazzi, and privacy all these things are really big issues. Recall when Sarah Palin's yahoo email account was hacked by a college student, Obama supporter in TN? Obviously, that crossed the line, but where do we draw the line online?
Okay so, let's get back to the main question here; How Do We Store Online Data without violating personal property, and how do we protect national security without breaches in data, or violations of personal privacy. And if we anonimize all the data for use at a future time, how should we store it for Future Data Mining Without Knowing the Future Questions?
The information and data could be stored by region, time, frequency, and relevance. It must be stored for a multitude of purposes, and we must determine who may obtain the data, who will use the data, and what will they use it for. You see, there are different ways to store the information categories to be displayed in, or various types of tags to assign it to.
Perhaps, all the information can be stored, every bit of it, and a trusted data inquirer who wants to ask the questions, will have to explain their inquiry to an artificially intelligent computer, and it can act like a Supreme Court review on privacy. In other words, if the reason for the information is not good enough, access to that particular information will be denied. And yes it could use constitutional extrapolations, which would be philosophically based on the same analogy as surgeon seizure rules, or Fifth Amendment rights of self-determination.
As if the data itself would be alive, and the artificial intelligent computer would be the judge deciding if the prosecution would be allowed to ask those questions of the computer data system. In this case you could just store all the information you could possibly take in, and not worry about it. Okay so, that is one option; just store all the data, regardless of what it is. Or another option is to store only some data, data you believe to be important for the future, but knowing the whole truth of the past, is not completely known.
This is problematic however due to "selective prosecution" challenges. You see, one of my biggest fears would be information taken at a context, and used to condemn people or character assassinate them, or incriminate them at a trial, or in the mass media in court of public opinion using stored data, using a computer forensic chain of data, selectively gathered.
We know that the media uses this trick early and often, and they do so in often ruining people's lives. We need to be careful with that. It's serious issue. The reality is you cannot trust humans, they have proven throughout history to be a trustworthy, and you don't have to go very far to find inherent corruptness and individuals of the human species. This being my primary reason for suggesting an AI computer system.
The other concept might be to not collect the data at all, because you don't really need the data, and if you have the data available, we all know that it will be abused. Of course, the proof of innocence could also very well be in that same data, you see that point? But, the chances for abuse is far too great when humans are involved. We've had previous Presidential Administrations use IRS data to attack their enemies, and use the FBI to track political opponents. State Governors have used state police to track persons whom they've had disputes with or political adversaries as well. The abuse of power is quite common.
So, under the opposite model, you could say; No Data from Anyone, Agency, Corporation, or Organization maybe collected period; you can't collect it, you can't have it, and you can't use it. That means you can't use it for good or for evil. Some might say that would be unfortunate because a lot of that data can help prevent crimes, it can help better solve the challenges and problems of our society, and it can help artificial intelligence make the best decisions based on the best information.
If we continually make decisions based on lack of information, is this really a smart way to do planning? If on the other hand we have irrelevant information, bad information, or information taken out of context, we will never be able to make any decisions without very unfortunate unintended consequences, which is what is happening now it seems.
At our think tank we talk a lot about this, but we don't do political correctness, and we aren't about to give the human species a free pass on integrity, they don't deserve it, they haven't earned it, and we all know they cannot be trusted.
Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?How-Do-We-Store-Data-for-Future-Data-Mining-Without-Knowing-the-Future-Questions?&id=4867341
No comments:
Post a Comment