Note: From ETL to WEC

Oh how shiny is the world of Extract-Transform-Load in data analysis.

But it’s not. It’s the major fun spoiler in that. Now, I see a better ‘name’ being used [proposed?], in this also otherwise insightful piece.

WEC it will be. Wrangling, Exploration, Cleaning.

All three much needed. The W+C parts, hinting at the average quality of your data, certainly. [The E part having an air of clean, still.] But the W+C parts also hinting at the introduction of bias, etc. – as already flagged here, unbiasing may not be so easy – hence hinting at the return of the old Law of Conservation of Trouble.
When it comes to the use of ML in accounting, for example; there, the less the data is touched the better. Any uncleanness a signal of weakness; scouring for exceptions is not so easy when these very things are cleaned out (or even lost in the wrangling, not conceded).

Oh well. It’s Friday; we’re off now with:

[When the weather agrees; Gent]

You are unimportant

Yes you, my dear reader [can just as well put that in single not plural…] who are in the information security arena.
Per this piece.

Where “It is time to acknowledge the wisdom of the “bean counters.” is of course a fat joke. But in continuation, there’s much to agree with and then worry about since it ‘threatens’ you – if you were/are self-absorbed.
Where in counterpoint, the whole overarching idea of ‘risk management’ is too little prominent. I don’t mean the artritic type of yesteryears, but the modern flavour of a. integration in the ‘first’ line [but then truly; not in lieu-tenants positions but by the executives at all levels themselves], b. the right mix of qualitative and quantitative – not the middling heat map atrocities.

Have you more counterpoints? Counter-counter-…x … [yes that’s points, if you didn’t get the point]?
Oh well, it’s getting late in the day. So:

[A hidden gem behind the hidden gem next door (Bij Qunis): the pumps that drained Holland are still there; Lijnden
 Oh hey that pic again in only a couple days’ time span yes by accident (appropriately or …? ]

No creep, promise!

When the creeps tell you they’re benign, how to tell ..?
Take this, for example: AI to preventitavely profile shoplifters. Right. Where scope creep of the app, will be not (co. name) Vaak (Dutch for: often) but Always Without Exception. If you don’t want to believe the latter, please remove yourself from any discussion and from any position of influence you might have as you show yourself to be mentally unfit to partake in it or have agency, respectively.

Whuddaboud false positives? False negatives will take care of themselves. But the first … And the claim that this is a move towards a society where crime can be prevented … If you think that, see the above. If you believe the human-in-the-loop will remain, see the above.
Also, have a look at the comments re Schneier (here); so many creepy deployments already, so many creepy misses… Oh I read there the English pronounciation of the co.’s name, with an F for V and uh instead of aa.

Be vigilant, citizens! Report this sort of stuff! Take down such morally criminal behaviour!


[There go your human rights; Canadian side, own pic]

De heat maps vliegen in het rond

Reken maar, op de bijeenkomst.
Post gescheduled voordat het programma bekend werd dus eens zien hoeveel punten we scoren…: ]

Niet De bijeenkomst. Wegens:

En ook de posts van de afgelopen tijd, waaronder (deze, als u goed leest,) deze, deze en deze plus deze toch vrij helder moge wezen.
En voor degenen die nog verder willen studeren: deze.
Waarbij nog een forse dosis onderliggend-probleem bij deze voorbij zal komen. En weinig over deze.

Nog afgezien overigens van de uitglijder van Trust But Verify, die ook nog steeds populair lijkt – het lijkt haast wel gecorreleerd met de foutheid ervan… Erger nog, er zal wel wat over 3LoD voorbijkomen. Dat dus bij voorbaat de plank op een slechte manier mist [niet eens misslaat, de afwijking is groter dan dat]. En een blokje Agile/Scrum of zo, al of niet in de Internal Audit – misschien juist, maar waarschijnlijk iets minder juist gepresenteerd. En een scheutje Cobit, de nieuwe versie die alles weer zo lekker door elkaar haalt [comments]. Sausje ‘cyber‘ eroverheen en klaar. Want cloud en data-gedreven zijn té jaren ’00 om nog een beetje leuk mee te kunnen doen op het menu, toch?

Ja lees ze (nóg) maar eens na, als voorbereiding op morgen. Of als voorbereiding op Vandaag, als u in ‘risk management’ werkt. Conclusie: You’re Doing It Wrong.
Helaas. Maar als u al aan verbetering werkt, o.a. door uzelve vast te verbeteren door studie op bovenstaande posts, dan is er hoop, een hoop. Op betere tijden respectievelijk te doen.
Ik blijf hoopvol…


[Uw risk management mag dan een kunstwerk zijn, maar als dat de enige kwaliteit is… Volledigheid, scherpte, … ?]

Complexicated, One More Thing

One more then, on complexity beyond mere complication. In particular, re (IT) systems.
As I posted before, there’s a difference between complicated’ness [if that is a word] and complexity. Oh no, that post I did write but didn’t yet publish; it’ll take a month… Well, anyway: Complicated is what can be tackled (modelled i.e. simplified for understanding) with an algorithmic process, complex is that which eludes modelling to a suitable-simplifying degree and behaves ‘unpredictably’.

The latter, being the point. Where, like, your infrastructure may be complex. To be cleaned up, of course, but for now, too hot to handle. Which is OK if you run a shop where Tomorrow is squarely Long Term Mañana, but in general, and in critical situations, you want some better mid-term and long-term control than prayer… Case I in point: Flight. Case II in point: Haut Finance, the flash type, that relies so heavily on complex, near-AGI-AI auto trading. (Bit more here)

Lots of references, to daily real-world situations that our society depend upon (think of class break type mess-ups and their consequences including the huge ripple effects …!). The post title reference to this, accidentally [??] close to this.

But think about the above. What was Singularity again ..? Is this how hoomans get thrown under the bus; accidentally not even on purpose? Meaning the oracle was right again? [The two others, are actively pursuing what they warn against ..?] Note that in the above case, it’s more a matter of this [quote on ants] than on active malice. Accidental superiority.

Almost ~ in being human, it seems; qua messing things up. You don’t want superiority in that any more than superiority in purely benevolent independence and agency. Remember this; AI systems [plural ..?] as slaves, to us. A hope. Hope is where arguments have run out…

Oh well. And:

[Coincidentally [?}, that bloke on a pole; London]

Suitable material

Surprisingly, there hasn’t been much ado about the societal change that must’ve taken place when still recently, one shouldn’t have inhaled or not be presidential material, versus some recent examples [link?], versus upcoming candidate(s) that are/is like “Hey punk [rocker], join the cDc they said, you may be president, they said”:
– (and) This.
From the lone star state, no less. He’s a straight shooter, no less.

Quite a change, right? At least their private email servers and social media may be hacked ‘back’ ..?

Anyway …:

[To hold the rowdy at bay; Baltimore]

Adversarial, edgy bias continuation

What a title… It’s about how deterring edge cases and ‘adversarial’ examples [not the quotes] will let your system perform better … in test environments. But how this will also enforce and re-inforce biases.
Edge cases give results with too much noise – throw them out, please, as they distort [??] the quality of training hence of the system-to-be. And we need to go into production.
Adversarial examples aren’t edgy, they sit in the middle [by any dimension(s)] of the training set. Hence look OK, but also result in too much noise if suitable; you don’t want your confusion matrix to be awkward, right?

This leads to two turbid troubles:
Stripping too much noise will render your model valid in smaller and smaller contexts – do you tell your client? Bias may ensue, as you dumb down the system to dumb stereotypes only.
Societal effects ensue. If one is discriminated against for living in a certain neighbourhood, e.g., gentrification efforts (sic) will fail. ‘Adversarial’ newcomers will be kicked out; not by incumbents but by systems, on credit scoring and the like. The incumbents will not be able to ‘escape’ in flip side.
This leads to perpetuation of learned discrimination, or even strengthen it; somewhere here, the term ‘survivorship bias’ creeps in.

Feel free to elucidate, or counterpoint, in comments …


[These Tom, Dick and Harry wouldn’t let you in for sure: No class. Uhm, monai would fix this…; Rijks Amsterdam]

Compliance is Broccoli – of nie? Voer voor risi’ci

Recent kwam het idee in het nieuws (nou ja) om ‘compliance’ als een broccoli aan te pakken:

of liever

– omdat het idee is dat het principe aan de basis staat, en wordt vertaald (‘stapsgewijs verfijnd’ én wordt omgezet in de taal van die droevige gebruikertjes die geen benul hebben van de taal van de doorluchte … nogniethalfbakken-luchtverkopers die oh zo blij zijn dat ze met Heel Belangrijke Dingen bezig mogen zijn, Compliance enzo, echt GRC joh! [1]) naar de end nodes, waar de medewerkers de detailregeltjes krijgen en de weg terug naar principes heel simpel is – zodat iedereen kan begrijpen waarom de regeltjes er zijn en zich er dus aan kan houden en kan inzien dat dit de perfect passende regeltjes zijn.

Alleen … de end nodes van een broccoli zijn sterk verdrongen, verwrongen door de aanpalende end nodes. En dat is de praktijk: De eindgebruikers, gewone medewerkers, ‘burgers’ om de formeel neutrale maar oh zo pejoratief gebruikte term te gebruiken, worden geplet onder de pietlutregeltjes. Die misschien heel prima herleidbaar zijn tot principes — maar dat gebeurt nooit in voldoende mate, over de hele.
En de uitleg struikelt, als duidelijk wordt dat een werkbare lading eindregeltjes nóg te verdrukkend veel is. Productiviteit die wordt verpletterd onder overhead is niet efficiënt, en (dus ook) zeker niet effectief waar het de handhaving van principes betreft. Omdat het zo veel is, zal op de werkvloer niet het hanteren van de regeltjes met commander’s intent gebeuren, maar met een insteek om eerst en vooral alle regeltjes zo veel mogelijk, ja dat mag best veel energie kosten, teniet te doen om pas áls er dan nog energie over is, te gaan denken aan eventuele mogelijk handhaving van principes – de principes die men zelf herkent, als deskundige par excellence in het eigen werkgebied.
Oftewel, de top kan mooi babbelen over principes, maar wat er op de werkvloer wordt uitgestort heeft een hoogst onaangenaam odeur en verstikt bovendien. Ja dat gebeurt, niet alleen altijd (sic) bij u maar ook elders.
Vandaar bovenstaande omkering: Aan de top lijkt het helder, aan de grond is het wurgend.
Continue reading “Compliance is Broccoli – of nie? Voer voor risi’ci”

Parental Control – Surveilling your parents … Ew!

This, being a minimally edited re-post from almost two years ago – but still relevant, and I haven’t heard an answer … Anyone ..?

There you have it: Parental Control is needed more than ever, in a subtle way (I’d suggest you would do best to re-study The Cyber Effect; as I do), given the ever increasing (sic) risks online for the smaller than you. And the requirements of GDPR – that you may have to enforce (?), over your children’s apps.

But what about the more grown-up than you; your parents …? They either are only now, slowly, coming online, or they have been there already longer and have practised, but now are becoming older and mentally less capable or acute.
Hence, would we need to instate parental control to (also) mean: control over your parents (‘ their online behaviour)? And how would we have to arrange that; the norms for what e.g., appropriate content would be, are, ahem, not so clear. When a child would want to explore a vast portion of the Internet / its traffic, many agree that this would be either to be forbidden or a serious learning opportunity qua acceptability.
But when the one(s) that taught you about the birds and the bees would want to visit such sites, well, ew! but on the other hand…
Similar, qua gambling sites, hooliganism, et al. — not forbidden for any adult / your parents but , squared with how the capacity to operate in society may deteriorate with the elderly and where the thresholds might be, where do things get out of hand?

Yes, in Europe, when you die your data (as that sits with the government; on socmed etc. too! [ref needed]) belongs to the government and your family has no rights over them. By consequence of some weird interpretations of obscure articles, contra reasonable moral and ethical expectations by relatives (biologically/family-related, or qua social media ‘friends’..?).
But for bank accounts et al., there have been practical rules and protocols already a long time, so that children (come of age) slide step-wise into custodianship. Would we need something similar for parents’ online behaviour?

What would the rules of thumb look like, and could they be enforced somehow, to protect the weak against abuse ..?
Let’s discuss.


[Yes it’s electric! (Voorburg)]

Storage space – in the cloud, not YourSpace

Yeah, there you are – thinking that because you’ve rented some space in the cloud (be it with real money [bits and bytes flowing over a staggering non-manageable complexity of networks, no-one bing able to pin down where ‘your’ bits might be at any given time – close to utter wave-equation physics a.k.a Buddism…] or with your data in the first place), you’ve put your data in the hands of the most capable to protect it.

Too bad. MySpace’s only a first example, or not even the first. As in this story. Not-even-than-old data being wiped with a Sorry.
As if … as if there aren’t any back-ups. Oh. As if anyone would care … “Flagrant incompetence may be bad PR, but it still sounds better than ‘we can’t be bothered with the effort and cost of migrating and hosting 50 million old MP3s’ ”
Yes maybe MySpace’s not really a major player anymore in socmedland, but apparently a lot of accidental archiving’s still on it. Correction; read no longer on it.

A thought for you. Where do you keep your cloud storage? How sure are you that all data is safe, indefinitely? Ever heard of broken promises? You an ostrich?

Not really, eh? Hence:

Ah! Now there‘s storage; not even the largest, for that: go to Vasques de Carvalho