Given all the Facebook stuff, I think less balancing towards the side of the robots would probably probably be good:
‘A recent study advocating a U.S. strategy for developing machine intelligence also noted the potential barriers to development that include GDPR and other data privacy efforts. The study released by the Center for Strategic and International Studies warned that the shift to “data localization” will require “balancing legitimate concerns around privacy and consumer protection both in the United States and abroad with the need for an open, flexible data ecosystem that supports innovation and experimentation in AI.”’
Original source: GDPR Seen Slowing AI Innovation
“There is no other way to interpret Facebook’s privacy invading moves over the years—even if it’s time to simplify! finally!―as anything other than decisions driven by a combination of self-serving impulses: namely, profit motives, the structural incentives inherent to the company’s business model, and the one-sided ideology of its founders and some executives. All these are forces over which the users themselves have little input, aside from the regular opportunity to grouse through repeated scandals.”
Original source: Why Zuckerberg’s 14-Year Apology Tour Hasn’t Fixed Facebook
“Dating app users provide sensitive information like drug usage habits and sexual preferences in hopes of finding a romantic match…. everything you put on your profile, including drug use and health status. Web trackers can examine your behavior on a page and how you answer key personal questions.”
Original source: How dating sites spy on you
“Large enterprises expect to get an average 246 GDPR enquiries per month, for which they will need to search 43 databases (seven minutes per search). They will spend more than 1,259 hours on this, which equates to nearly 60 hours of searches per working day or 7.5 employees dedicated solely to GDPR enquiries.”
It’s a database management company doing the survey, but still a good wet finger in the wind
Original source: GDPR requests to take thousands of hours a month, says survey
“It all works when a user opens the iPhone’s health app, navigates to the health record section, and, on the new tool, adds a health provider. From there, the user taps to connect to Apple’s software system and data start streaming into the service. Patients will get notified via an alert if new information becomes available.”
Sounds cool. We’ll see. Apple often takes 2-3 years to actually have software that works well and is useful. And then, as with Photos, they fuck it up 2-3 years late.
Original source: Apple bringing medical records to iPhone, Apple Watch
Exciting new audit needs ahead, hoss: “Organisations should review their IT systems and procedures to check they comply with GDPR requirements for privacy by design, ensuring only the minimum amount of personal data necessary is processed. Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) should be completed when using new technologies and the data processing is likely to result in a high risk to individuals.”
Original source: GDPR compliance – here are the 14 things you actually need to do
Kelly noted that while this was “still a work in progress” and not necessarily “what we’re going to do right now,” he added that President Donald Trump’s freeze on entry to the U.S. by citizens of seven countries, “is giving us an opportunity… to get more serious than we have been about how we look at people coming into the United States.”
“These are the things we’re thinking about,” he said. “We can ask them for this kind of information, and if they truly want to come into America, then they’ll cooperate. If not, you know, next in line.”
It’s be nice to find the exact back and forth, somewhere in this five and half hour Home Security Committee video.
Also, it’s further in the “life becoming more like Black Mirror” vein. Recall that episode where people are required to review all their memories when they cross borders and enter airports.
Source: “DHS mulls password collection at borders.”
The mathematical modeling of society is made possible, according to Pentland, by the innate tractability of human beings. We may think of ourselves as rational actors, in conscious control of our choices, but in reality most of what we do is reflexive. Our behavior is determined by our subliminal reactions to the influence of other people, particularly those in the various peer groups we belong to. “The power of social physics,” he writes, “comes from the fact that almost all of our day-to-day actions are habitual, based mostly on what we have learned from observing the behavior of others.” Once you map and measure all of a person’s social influences, you can develop a statistical model that predicts that person’s behavior, just as you can model the path a billiard ball will take after it strikes other balls.
Source: Big data and the limits of social engineering