Posted on 08/03/2016 8:42:21 AM PDT by MarchonDC09122009
MassPrivateI: Police to arrest people based on 'Sentiment Analysis' of their Tweets
http://massprivatei.blogspot.com/2016/08/police-to-arrest-people-based-on.html?m=1
MassPrivateI Privacy, Civil Rights And Criminal Justice Issues
Aug 2, 2016 Police to arrest people based on 'Sentiment Analysis' of their Tweets
Researchers at the University of Salamanca (USAL) have developed a 'Sentiment Analysis' (SA) algorithm that monitors Twitter and Facebook.
Psychologist, Paul Ekman has worked with the CIA, DOD and DHS for years, helping develop facial emotion detection, click here to read more.
Our government is also using 'Emotive Analytics' (EA), to arrest and imprison innocent people!
Ekman has provided training to a whole series of people who were guards at Abu Ghraib prison, to extract information and truth without torture. "They used my [facial analysis] work, and it was very successful," Ekman said.
It's only a matter of time, before police use Emotive Analytics to arrest Americans.
American policing of a person's sentiments, is this a joke?
Sadly, this is no joke.
SA trains algorithms to extract subjective emotions and feelings from texts. SA is based on the 'Bayes theorem' and 'Granger causality’.
The Bayes theorem is P(A∣B)=P(B∣A)P(A)P(B). This basically states “the probability of A given that B is true equals the probability of B given that A is true times the probability of A being true, divided by the probability of B being true.”
According to Wikipedia, "the Granger causality test is a statistical hypothesis test for determining whether one time series is useful in forecasting another... Granger also stressed that some studies using "Granger causality" testing in areas outside economics reached "ridiculous" conclusions."
What they're really saying is, police will be using junk science to arrest citizens for harboring dangerous sentiments.
Police to detect and arrest people for dangerous sentiments
According to professor Juan Manuel Corchado, law enforcement could use the tool to detect , threats and areas with concentrations of potentially dangerous people. “It’s based both on the semantic analysis of messages and historical data and their evolution.”
SA's make classification decisions based on probabilities
SA looks for word counts and assigns them a probability. SA's try to determine if a data row should be classified as negative or positive. SA's generate word counts for negative and positive tones, that's it. SA's aren't a crystal ball, that tells law enforcement what a person is thinking!
SA's are rubbish
An article, titled RMP Media Analysis, claims SA's are rubbish. The article, mentions a couple of reasons to be suspicious of SA's... Public Relations and Corporate Communications need metrics to demonstrate their value to the organization and, You are a non-profit organization. One of your primary stated goals is to increase donations. If you substitute 'law enforcement' for "public relations and non-profit organizations" you'll begin to see the picture.
'Law enforcement' needs metrics to demonstrate their value to the government and public. You're a law enforcement agency. One of your primary stated goals is to increase funding."
Presently, law enforcement can use SA's to spy on the sentiments of English, French, German, Russian and Arabic speaking people. SA's claim to see changes in an individuals’ sentiments and physical location while analyzing group interrelationships at the same time.
image credit: BBC
“I hate Twitter, it's like a state surveillance agency staffed by gullible volunteers” Stewart Lee said.
Police use dangerous sentiments [Tweets] to locate citizens
“It [SA] can establish where a dangerous user is located with reasonable precision, based on what they share on Twitter and how and with whom they are connecting at any time, without the need of geolocating tweets” Corchado claims.
Last week, I warned everyone that police were ranking 'influential citizens.'
"Influentials" are those individual seen as having importance or the ability to influence an individual’s actions. These can be both positive and negative influences.
Police to influence people and change their sentiments
SA's can identify members of a group, its leaders and followers. It is also possible to see how relationships evolve and whether new members join a group. In addition, Corchado claims, the tool can try to influence them to change their sentiments. Substitute, police for "tool" since they'll be the ones spying on influential people.
Cops to use emotion recognition
A company called Emotient, claims they can tell what a person is thinking, based on their attitudes and emotions. "Uses for emotion recognition and analysis are as varied and expansive as the imagination... Wherever there are cameras there can be video analysis of expressions, and an opportunity to learn about the customer’s state of mind as they emotionally respond to marketing, product and service experiences." (click here to see Emotient's second video)
Emotient delivers insights in the form of three key performance indicators (KPIs), and detailed data on emotions, for every face in each video frame:
Emotient KPIs
Attention – Is your advertising or product getting noticed? Engagement – Are people responding emotionally? Sentiment – Are they showing positive, negative or no emotion?
Microsoft & MIT own Emotive Analytics companies
EA must have a very profitable future, Microsoft and MIT have started two EA companies called Emotion API and Affectiva. There are numerous companies in the EA business, Emotive Analytics, Eyeris, Kairos and nVISO are some of the many companies making money of a gullible America.
Citizens to be given 'sentiment' and 'social disorder' ratings
If history is any indicator, citizens everywhere will be given 'sentiment' and 'social disorder' ratings.
Police in America are already giving citizens 'social disorder ratings' The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) is using a 'Social Disorder Index' (SDI) to determine the level of social disorder a location presents to its surrounding community.
Americans to be labeled as "insider threats"
The Department of Defense provides a non-exhaustive list of “insider threats,” which include, but are not limited to: “damage to the United States through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of national security information, or through the loss or degradation of departmental resources or capabilities.”
Homeland Security is behind SA's
A video titled, 'Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Texts' reveals the National Research Council, Facebook, Google, and IBM are behind SA's. Click here, here & here to read about NRC's close relationship with DHS.
Fyi, Google's app store has at least five SA apps, GetAbout.Me, SplunkBase, Applause, Sentiment140 and Aylien. A recent TechCrunch article, reveals how SA apps are being used to predict everything from consumer opinions about veggies to stock prices.
Police are giving homes color-coded threat ratings
"The [911] database goes through all public information for the call’s location — from arrest records to pizza deliveries — and gives the address a rating. Green means minimal threat, yellow a possible threat and red a major threat."
"The RTCC system shows officers three pieces of data: the threat level, the criminal history of anyone living at the home and a list of known friends and family members. This list sometimes includes possible phone numbers and addresses of these associates."
Applying tone, tonality or sentiment to Tweets and texts, is an exercise in futility and brings us one step closer to a total Police State.
Welcome to the future of American policing, where reality is turned upside down
Only Twits Tweet
Just wait until they start scraping regular websites like this one using these tools.
Further, just keep in mind that it’s not just the tool that’s the problem, since all it does is spit out a rating for each analyzed subject. It’s the people who define what those ratings mean that are the problem.
Yup. The only thing 140 characters will get you is in trouble.
Thank goodness you're not on Twitter or Facebook. The cops would never think of looking here for unapproved sentiments.
The trick with text analysis algorithms like this is that at some point, a reference sample of text must be judged as “offensive” by some person in order to enable it to train itself.
Who gets to judge what is offensive? Eye of the beholder and all that stuff.
...or the Department of Pre-Crime...
How have I managed to get to be nearly 70 years old and missed out on doing these Twits? Or are the people that do this called Twits? Or Twats? Or Twerks?
This sh*t is not real life, no more than Facebook is real life. It is all phony and make believe. Which is why so many people in our country are living in a fantasy world, instead of reality. They can't tell the difference.
Here is my data to run through the Sediment Analysis:
I love Obama. He can do no wrong.
And Hillary is worthy to be our Eternal Queen.
Just doing my own preemptive Community Organizing.
Maybe you didn't do it, but you thought about it.
Maybe you weren't an actual member of that offending group, but you had sympathy for it.
Maybe you didn't riot, but you cheered the rioters.
Well yes, making threats whether in person, on the phone or on the internet is a crime.
Next?
put this IN THE PILE WITH ebonics....... and horse manure
if this works then explain san bernardino orlando boston
and the rest...
more libtard government funded horse manure
You’re new here (Apr 2016).
Your flip comment may be sarcastic, purposely provocative, or simply a simplistic reaction confusing sentiment with threat..
The issue is Who actually determines what sentimeny is, and if it is a legitimate threat?
If for instance someone said, “I hope we can get rid of (fill in the blank with politician of choice).
Does “get rid of” constitute a threat?
Will a gov’t “Sentiment” algorithm understand context, sarcasm, if the utterance is credible “threat”?
Will a gov’t sentiment tool be able to establish the authenticity of Who said what?
Trolls co-opt social media account names all the time.
Do YOU trust all of the leftists running gov’t, social media, and universities, to employ an honest citizen sentiment analysis tool that respects the first ammendment freedom of speech and association?
We already have ample proof that social media, gov’t and universities have No tolerance for conservatives ideology or expression.
Do you trust those authorities to risk rank you and fellow citizens?
I Do Not.
Perhaps you’d just rather not think that deeply about the ever smaller fishbowl you are condoning and funding?
RE: “Well yes, making threats whether in person, on the phone or on the internet is a crime.
Next?”
“Who gets to judge what is offensive? “
Your key to power? Right now think who is making those decisions.
That’s a really poorly written story. Someone need Journalism 101.
It’s a blog about privacy topics.
Amateur journalist at least is bringing to light developments that mainstream pedigreed “journalists” refuse to report.
Valuable links for further topic research at the blog site.
RE: “That’s a really poorly written story. Someone need Journalism 101.”
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.