Recently I have discover Jeff Jonas’ blog. Jeff is a really interesting person and if you are interested in Social Network Analysis or Data Mining, then his page should be on your reading list.
His idea for a simple and anonymous watch list checking is one of those forehead-slapping, “why didn’t I think of that” ideas that I just love to read about. Basically the idea is that if sensitive fields in a database (name, birthdate, etc.) are encrypted in a one-way hash, then the database can be distributed without fear of a massive invasion of privacy (because all of the data in it is encrypted). If you need to check to see if someone is in this database, you simply apply the same one-way hash to their information, and then see if the hashed data is in the database. If it is, then it gets reported back to the original database holder who then is responsible for keeping the data.
Einstein, Dijkstra, and everyone else who ever talked about elegance and simplicity were 100% right. And this idea is simple and elegant. Check out this entry about how the network that connects the facts should be interpreted: Jeff Jonas: Sometimes a Big Picture is Worth a 1,000 False Positives
2 comments ↓
i’m a little skeptical on this one..
of course it’s easy to look in retrospect that there’s an obvious network that connects Mohammed Atta with all the suspects, but how do you wade through the sea of data representing all of our phone calls and emails to arrive at this simplified sub-network..
and all the privacy issues. they ought to build a giant AI overwatch program to monitor human abuse of fellow humans. our species is too mischievous.
The hashing of the database (in my opinion) does provide a good level of privacy to the people that are listed in it. How that database was compiled is another question altogether, but overall I think an approach like that is better than just distributing the database (which is what everyone has assumed has been happening).
As for connecting the links, Jeff Jonas has been writing some more articles recently about that. Apparently people of interest have certain patterns that stand out compared to the population at large (according to him). From what I’ve read about Mr. Jonas, he’s been quite successful at applying these theories at gaming casinos (to catch organized gambling/cheating rings, etc.).
I just think its a really interesting field of study, and that its more interesting that someone at the forefront of the field is so interested in privacy issues (that sort of the opposite of what you would expect).
-Nick
You must log in to post a comment.