Comments on: Poll: Antiterror tech plans are flawed

U.S. government isn't doing enough with technology to improve homeland security, a CNET News.com-Harris Interactive poll finds.

[derhamp]

Re: Poll reliability

An initial read of the article suggests a willingness to trade liberty for security, but 3 concerns about the poll perhaps lessen the immediate response of concern - and thoughts of an unhappy Thomas Jefferson.
Firstly, how representative is the surveyed sample of the American population? To claim a 3% variation suggests it must be representative, yet no evidence of the universality of Internet access is advanced to justify the representative claim. (Nor is there any evidence offered to indicate the results have been weighted to be population-representative - which may also be difficult if an on-line poll only.)
Secondly, the trade-offs were not described in any detail and whether they were for "the American society" in general or for the respondent personally is unclear. The difference would or could alter answers significantly beyond the apparent reliability of the claimed 3%. As an example, respondents may accept limits for "the society" in general but not for themselves personally - the right to own guns may be limied for "society in general", but would be resisted if also limited for the respondent personally as a responsible, individual citizen, for example).
Thirdly, were the respondents fairly and clearly informed of all the activities (technological and non-technological) already in place to manitain homeland security?
Were they informed what these secutity activities were protecting them from specifically, before asking their opinions of the adequacy of security measures?
If not, the questions may have been more likely to generate an attention-getting headline and interesting story, than a fair measure of citizen intent.
The answers obtained may have been based on inadequate information and the citizens responding not from an informed knowledgeable base but from imagination - perhaps even spooked imagination, depending on the exact words used, and the practice could be akin to asking what card will come up next, without explaining how many cards are in the pack, how the pack has been shuffled or how many cards have been already drawn.
Conclusion - interesting story - but the Scottish verdict - Not proven - seems more to apply than the concern displayed.
Yours sincerely,
Philip DERHAM.

[John Kuzak]

American society

http://www.analogstereo.com/honda_passport_owners_manual.htm

[derhamp]

Re: Poll reliability

An initial read of the article suggests a willingness to trade liberty for security, but 3 concerns about the poll perhaps lessen the immediate response of concern - and thoughts of an unhappy Thomas Jefferson.
Firstly, how representative is the surveyed sample of the American population? To claim a 3% variation suggests it must be representative, yet no evidence of the universality of Internet access is advanced to justify the representative claim. (Nor is there any evidence offered to indicate the results have been weighted to be population-representative - which may also be difficult if an on-line poll only.)
Secondly, the trade-offs were not described in any detail and whether they were for "the American society" in general or for the respondent personally is unclear. The difference would or could alter answers significantly beyond the apparent reliability of the claimed 3%. As an example, respondents may accept limits for "the society" in general but not for themselves personally - the right to own guns may be limied for "society in general", but would be resisted if also limited for the respondent personally as a responsible, individual citizen, for example).
Thirdly, were the respondents fairly and clearly informed of all the activities (technological and non-technological) already in place to manitain homeland security?
Were they informed what these secutity activities were protecting them from specifically, before asking their opinions of the adequacy of security measures?
If not, the questions may have been more likely to generate an attention-getting headline and interesting story, than a fair measure of citizen intent.
The answers obtained may have been based on inadequate information and the citizens responding not from an informed knowledgeable base but from imagination - perhaps even spooked imagination, depending on the exact words used, and the practice could be akin to asking what card will come up next, without explaining how many cards are in the pack, how the pack has been shuffled or how many cards have been already drawn.
Conclusion - interesting story - but the Scottish verdict - Not proven - seems more to apply than the concern displayed.
Yours sincerely,
Philip DERHAM.

[John Kuzak]

American society

http://www.analogstereo.com/honda_passport_owners_manual.htm

[leesbee]

Inplants under skin

We don't need them an all the exter cost to set this up!!
We already have a one of a kind in plant!!
It's called our EYES

[leesbee]

Inplants under skin

We don't need them an all the exter cost to set this up!!
We already have a one of a kind in plant!!
It's called our EYES