• Cloak and Dagger,  NSA,  Privacy

    More NSA

    So now the NSA is under fire in the media for using cookies? Speaking as a web developer it’s difficult to do anything interesting without using them.

    On a more troubling note, it seems to have occurred to no one in the punditsphere as to why should the NSA eavesdrop on Americans at all? I recall reading somewhere a while back that there was a reciprocal arrangement with the British version of the NSA that would allow the NSA to eavesdrop on Britons and the Brits would eavesdrop on Americans? It was all nice and legal, and accomplished the same objective.

    As I said before, I had just assumed they were already doing this.

    Two reasons come to mind as to why not:

    1. They didn’t want the British to know, which doesn’t really seem that likely
    2. They’re using, if not a new technology, then a new technique to determine who to wiretap, and they were applying it retroactively to already recorded conversations. Also they’re monitoring patterns more than anything. This would allow them to profile effectively, without actually saying the word profiling, which makes everyone happy.
    Comments Off on More NSA
  • History

    This is interesting

    Sacco and Vanzettis look even guiltier! And Sinclair Lewis knew!

    Actually that isn’t that interesting, but notable none the less.

    Actually I thought it was assumed by everyone that Sacco was guilty, and Vanzetti probably wasn’t. Now it would seem they both were guilty, according to their lawyer.

    Comments Off on This is interesting
  • Economics,  Web

    It’s as if the internet is all about Nick

    I cruise on over to Marginal Revolution, and I see Why people don’t like Wikipedia (and blogs) which references The Probabalistic Age over on The Long Tail

    When professionals–editors, academics, journalists–are running the show, we at least know that it’s someone’s job to look out for such things as accuracy. But now we’re depending more and more on systems where nobody’s in charge; the intelligence is simply emergent. These probabilistic systems aren’t perfect, but they are statistically optimized to excel over time and large numbers. They’re designed to scale, and to improve with size. And a little slop at the microscale is the price of such efficiency at the macroscale.

    But how can that be right when it feels so wrong?

    There’s the rub. This tradeoff is just hard for people to wrap their heads around. There’s a reason why we’re still debating Darwin. And why Jim Suroweicki’s book on Adam Smith’s invisible hand is still surprising (and still needed to be written) more than 200 years after the great Scotsman’s death. Both market economics and evolution are probabilistic systems, which are simply counterintuitive to our mammalian brains. The fact that a few smart humans figured this out and used that insight to build the foundations of our modern economy, from the stock market to Google, is just evidence that our mental software has evolved faster than our hardware.

    RTWT