Little Fuss on Big Data?

"Big data" is everywhere - and no, that's not ungrammatical.  From the 2.5 quintillion bytes of data that IBM says we create every day, government, IT firms, consulting firms, and universities are not only intensively searching for more and more ways to crunch massive amounts of structured and unstructured data to yield new insights into behavior and make better predictions and decisions, but adding to those data by relentlessly publicizing the virtues of using big data.  In the midst of the almost deafening buzz about big data, two commentaries this week offered some trenchant observations about the care with which we need to gather and analyze big data.

First, in a May 9 article for Foreign Policy, Kate Crawford of the MIT Center for Civic Media warns against blind trust that big data necessarily "illuminate the hidden world of human behavior."  Crawford makes five main points.  First, as she puts it,"Numbers can't speak for themselves, and data sets -- no matter their scale -- are still objects of human design. The tools of big-data science . . . do not immunize us from skews, gaps, and faulty assumptions."  Noting that "there is a problematic belief that bigger data is always better data and that correlation is as good as causation," she points out the risks of reliance on social-media data in light of its potential nonrepresentativeness, confirmation bias, and flawed or biased algorithms.  Second, while she accepts that "[b]ig data can provide valuable insights to help improve our cities," she also observes that "big-data approaches to city planning depend heavily on city officials understanding both the data and its limits."  Third, she identifies the real potential for researchers, marketers, and even law enforcement to use big data in improperly discriminatory ways.  Fourth, she observes that big data can pose threats to privacy, through re-identification of individuals whose data are part of big data aggregations, and through tracking individuals' identities and activities.  Fifth, she cautions that "unless we recognize and address some of big data's inherent weaknesses in reflecting on human lives, we may make major public policy and business decisions based on incorrect assumptions."  Crawford concludes on an optimistic note, saying that "we can draw on expertise across different fields in order to better recognize biases, gaps, and assumptions, and to rise to the new challenges to privacy and fairness."

Second, in a May 10 post on Wired's Innovation Insights blog, entrepreneur Ari Zoldan focuses on three significant problems with big data: (1) "it’s so vast and unorganized, that organizing it for analysis is no easy task," such as the identification of assumptions on which algorithms for big-data analysis are based; (2) the sheer volume of data can lead researchers into "signal error" (i.e., overlooking large gaps in data) and confirmation bias; and (3) the risk that drastically wrong conclusions from incorrect analysis will be broadcast faster in a globally connected world.  Zoldan offers three pieces of advice: (1) "approach every data set with skepticism [and] . . . assume that the data has inherent flaws"; (2) "realize that data is a tool, not a course of action," and use common sense in analyzing and basing decisions on big data; and (3) reiterating that we need "the means to analyze and interpret [big data] for use."

The two commentaries make similar points, and that's a good thing.  The points they raise are fundamental to developing a healthier and more informed perspective on big data and its responsible use in societies around the world.

Siringo's Ghost: Cattle Branding and Rustling in the Digital Age

In his classic 1885 memoir of cowboy life, A Texas Cowboy, Charles Siringo described what many would assume is a bygone era, when cowhands drove cattle along the Abilene Trail, branded cattle with hot irons, and occasionally "liberated" cattle belonging to unwary ranchers. Beef producers today may use the latest in technology, from ATVs to smartphone apps, but a number of recent reports indicate that Siringo's ghost would be right at home with two aspects of current U.S. cattle-raising: branding and rustling.

As a recent post by Jimmy Stamp on the "Design Decoded" blog at Smithsonian.com shows, the technology of marking cattle has changed remarkably little since Siringo's day.  Cattle ranchers still depend largely on hot branding irons (many of them now electric) to affix unique markings, which are recognized and regulated by state authorities from North Dakota to Texas and from Virginia to Hawaii.  DNA testing is certainly feasible, but far more time-consuming and costly to confirm ownership than a readily visible brand.

What makes branding an especially critical part of cattle-raising is the recent resurgence in cattle rustling across the Midwest and West, thanks to rising beef prices.  According to USA Today, the number of cattle and horses reported rustled to the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association increased from 7,600 in 2011 to more than 10,400 in 2012, and reports of missing or stolen cattle in California increased from 1,110 in 2011 to 1,225 in 2012.  So far in 2013, various news media have reported rustling incidents in Arkansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Who's behind cattle rustling these days?  According to one Missouri country prosecutor, some of the people who work in legitimate cattle-raising. As he put it, "Odds are . . . that you'll be out at 1 a.m. facing two or three cowboys hopped up on meth[.]  They're doing the same thing they do during the day, but they're doing it at night. They work at large ranches or other livestock organizations and know what they're doing."  Other law enforcement representatives and ranchers agree.  One Missouri cattleman said, "You worry about the meth heads, but the organized thieves are the bigger problem."

Siringo's ghost also would nod knowingly if he were to read about some cattle-rustling techniques still in use, such as rebranding cattle to alter the true owner's brand and, if confronted by cattlemen while the rustling is in progress, exchanging gunfire to get away.

What's the solution?  Like other aspects of cattle-raising, mostly low-tech seasoned with a dash of high-tech.  Video cameras have been used successfully to record rustling in progress, but most of the measures that law enforcement and cattlemen advocate would have worked equally well in the 19th century:

• More extensive branding (for example, one Missouri op-ed noted that "only a few thousand of Missouri's 60,000 operations have registered brands");
• Neighborhood watches and other basic surveillance measures, such as counting cattle regularly; and
• Rewards, sometimes up to $1,000 per cow.

Beef producers can always hope that cattle theft will again become, in the words of one Illinois federal judge, "as rare as a cowboy or a buggy whip" (at least in Illinois) (Kirby v. Springfield Fire Insurance Co., 216 F.Supp. 121 (N.D. Ill. 1963).)  But it would be "nostalgic and unrealistic" (also the judge's words) to think so.  In fact, the problem is spreading in other parts of the world.  The Gambia, Ireland, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Tanzania are also experiencing significant problems with cattle rustling, including the use of guns by armed rustlers in Kenya and Tanzania.  Even as Kenyan police are now urging the use of branding, Kenya and other nations may be interested in seeing how well the United States can do in devising effective solutions to its own rustling problem.