I think this is an odd takeaway from this article after reading the rest of it: “In other words, as urban planners, tech companies, and governments collect and share data, we now know that “it’s anonymized” is never a guarantee of privacy. And as they dig deep into the data we generate, cities and citizens…
It’s the standard argument against any kind of privacy statement right, you have nothing to worry about if you have nothing to hide. But’s it’s also bull-hockey. Because at the end of the day we all have something to hide. No, not necessarily something illegal, but just things we do, or want to learn more…
This seems less than ideal. “If you’re an American of European descent, there’s a 60% chance you can be uniquely identified by public information in DNA databases. This is not information that you have made public; this is information your relatives have made public.” There are links on Bruce’s post to a more detailed article…
This doesn’t surprise me, and I’m sure the numbers in the US would be similar, maybe even lower. Just 17 percent of UK managers feel “very confident” in ability to support colleagues experiencing mental health issues. A shocking proportion of managers in the UK workforce have never received training to equip them with the skills needed to spot mental…
Jim has put together a really great list of things to think about, because there is so much tech in our houses now that someone else having control of it can turn very dangerous, especially in a domestic violence situation: “Often the home technology has been set up by one partner in a relationship with the other…
In a nutshell, and in my own paraphrasing.- “Oops, now that we’ve gone and developed all this technology, it turns out people might use if for nefarious purposes, government, step in and stop us” From the actual article: “Smith pointed to several areas where the government could potentially create standards so that companies themselves wouldn’t…