[22]                             home                            [23]

 

 

link to Intelligence community Technology Evaluation Problem à

 

 

 

The Harvest of Social Discourse

A note from industry

 

 

4/12/2004 2:49 PM

 

In response to your letter (copied with names redacted)

 

The criticism that I have suggested is one that has philosophical and scientific grounds.  In the criticism, I suggest that it is natural that a harvest of social discourse (with imperfect technology derived from Total Information Awareness and J-39 type DARPA research) will not be done in a full measure.   My awareness is that neither TIA or J-39 program managers understood the technical issues, nor that high fidelity measurement of social discourse is available.

 

The technical problem gives rise also to moral problems.  In general it is doubtful that the current type of interaction between business, with near term profit motives, and clients, with very little real appreciation of the technical issues, will evolve the full measure of technology for total awareness.  It is not that I do not believe that there is no progress being made.  It is that a shift from algorithms anticipating solutions using deductive processes to algorithms that depend in cognitive acuity is needed, and this shift is contrary to the current funded interests.   

 

Given that a full measure cannot be done openly, and that the technology is hidden, one has to raise the issue of privacy and actual treats to individual liberty.  The reason is that if one cannot deliver a true representation of the themes of real time social discourse, then it is more likely that a company will revert to compromises. 

 

My communications with your company was as an attempt to strengthen your underlying technology so that your company would have the technology actually needed to realize the positive message related to developing branding philosophies that guide company responses to actual consumer expression. 

 

It is my professional opinion that you do not have such a technology now, at least I see no evidence of your having this technology from any of the public materials available from your web site.  I understand the reasoning behind venture capital investment in your company, including investments by In-Q-Tel. 

 

I have hoped that this issue was of concern to your management.  I continue to hope that this was an issue of concern to In-Q-Tel CEO Gilman Louie.  I had hoped that you would share my concern and act in a positive fashion.  

 

The message you have sent to me suggests defensiveness.  Why?  Why is it necessary to demand that I comply with rules that you make up? 

 

Again, as this is part of a larger social discussion I will restate my professional concerns.  

 

The concentration of web harvesting tools into hidden private control may be necessary for intelligence reasons, but if this concentration is hidden and under the control of private commercial interests we may have wholesale invasion of privacy issues by private companies NOT for anything remotely related to National Security.  This invasion may be at first difficult to detect, and then later be endemic to accepted business practices. 

 

This cannot be good for America.  Senator Boxer and others have expressed concerns about the government invading individual privacy, without knowledge of the invasion, with TIA technology.  Why would these concerns be less if a TIA technology was controlled and used in hidden ways by private companies in order to make profit, where NO National Security relationship is claimed?

 

I have also discussed other problems that might occur if a private company moves forward with imperfect technology that might be considered to be an invasion of privacy.  Does the public have a right to know and understand that their words are being harvested for commercial purposes?  What if the viewpoints of a specific individual are systematically distorted, or individuals where singled out, in order to gain an advertising position, for personal attacks by un-named individuals in chat rooms? 

 

What if the specific individual does not know that a TIA-type technology is being employed?  What if the intent of the deployment is to destroy his or her career?

 

Who is going to have oversight on this?  These are important political issues. 

 

The alternative that I have been suggesting is an open system 

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/knowledgeSharingFoundation.htm

 

where companies use the technology as a poll-type mechanism

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KnowledgeEcologies.htm

 

where ontology representation about what people feel is actually public domain and can be used by manufactures to adjust inventories and to make corrections to products that fail to meet consumer needs.  In this alternative, called the Anticipatory Web, the information about individuals is not captured - much like when a poll is taken. 

 

This type of system would have to have the light of day shone on it.  Such a system is necessary if private companies are using the TIA-type technology to spy on individual wants and needs - simply so that the public understands that this information gathering is part of the new reality.  (This is my opinion.)

 

These are philosophical matters that one might expect to be subject to scholarly debate, and public discussion. 

 

The core concern, I and other scholars have, is that In-Q-Tel has invested in a process that protects existing monopolies which do not understand the gulf between what their advertising suggests and what their actual technical capabilities are.  As a business strategy, this is understandable and is what all other venture capital companies are doing. 

 

In my opinion, the only reason for investing in at least 1/2 of the eleven companies is related to monopoly defense.  NovoDynamics is the best exception, in my opinion, and allows me personal hope that there are real understanding of the issues within In-Q-Tel. 

 

In many cases, there is a difference between what is branded and what can be delivered.  So this should be something that can be addressed, as I have in my paper:

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/beadgames/evaluation/twentytwo.htm

 

I am very dedicated to my work and will defend my rights even though this is not what I would prefer to do.  

 

For the GAO Fraud net correspondence I make the reference to

 

http://www.bcngroup.org/python3/fortysix.htm

 

and respectfully ask that this letter be added to the file for case:  GAO claim #  44777  filed Dec 11th 2003

 

 

Respectfully

 

Dr. Paul Prueitt

 

 

This communication and all future communications to me are deemed public and will be treated as such. 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Doug X [mailto: aaaa]

Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 11:13 AM

To: 'paul@ontologystream.com'

Subject: Your emails and other matters

 

 

Dr. Prueitt:

 

Thank you for your interest in Y.  I understand you have

recently contacted representatives of our company with research and funding

proposals, and invitations to participate in beadgames and dialogues on a

number of topics.  You also requested that this information be reviewed by

Y management, which has now occurred.

 

Following a review by management, I regret to inform you Y is not

interested in pursuing the opportunities presented.

 

Accordingly, Y hereby insists that you:

 

(1) Remove all Y recipients (that is, anyone with either an

Y or Q domain address) from any future email

distributions, including your emails to the BCNGroup Board, various ad-hoc

distribution lists, and beadgame messages that you are circulating.

 

(2) Cease and desist from any further use and/or unauthorized reproduction

of any Y white papers, other copyrighted Y literature,

or Y trademarks.  Certain infringing material (including a PDF

white paper) has been posted on your web site in recent days.  (Some of this

material may have already been removed.)

 

(3) Not circulate, reproduce, or publish via email, the World Wide Web, or

any other means:  (a) this confidential communication to you, (b) any other

communication from Y representatives to you, and (c) Y

representatives' names and associated personal information.

 

Again, thank you for your interest and anticipated compliance with the above

items.

 

Sincerely,

 

Doug X

Vice President and General Counsel

Y, Inc.