Post reply

The message has the following error or errors that must be corrected before continuing:
Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Attachments: (Clear attachments)
Restrictions: 4 per post (4 remaining), maximum total size 192 KB, maximum individual size 64.00 MB
Uncheck the attachments you no longer want attached
Click or drag files here to attach them.
(Clear attachments)
Other options
Verification:
Please leave this box empty:
Type the letters shown in the picture
Listen to the letters / Request another image

Type the letters shown in the picture:
Shortcuts: ALT+S post or ALT+P preview

Topic summary

Posted by Fair Chance
 - May 03, 2003, 01:53 AM
Dear Marty,

"Acceptable losses," "The price of security," and "Sometimes the few must be sacrificed for the survival of the many.": how many times have we heard justifications for false positives?  I think this article places some hard numbers on reality.

All I can say that it was not at all acceptable to be falsely accused.  One percent  falsely accused is one percent too many if you are in the one percent.

Such a waste of money and resources.

Regards.
Posted by Marty
 - May 03, 2003, 12:18 AM
A widely respected, ongoing discussion of probability related issues produced by L. Snell at Dartmouth reports on TIA (Total Information Awareness) as it illuminates problems associated with false positives. Also discussed is the NAS report on the high rate of polygraph false positives.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~chance/chance_news/current_news/current.html#item4

-Marty