My Digital FootPrint

I have explored privacy and identity in a previous post , taken from the perspective of the individual.  This post is from the perspective of the state/ nation/ law. I commented on Michael Becker's LinkedIn post about his list of words and definitions for the identity/ privacy space . I commented that everyone remains fixated on making their particular solution work to a problem the user has not got which is " #privacy. " Whilst every language and country has an ideal notion of privacy, the wide variety of cultures means there is no unified “concept of privacy”, even if privacy is explicitly named or defined in their specific language law or culture. I asked #chatGPT, the “AI” bot from Google, the question, “ how would a capitalist and socialist view privacy? ”  “Capitalists would see privacy as an important aspect of individual liberty and autonomy and they view privacy as a property right that can be traded or sold, and they may support policies that allow companies

A problem (among many) with data is that many people ask questions that are easy.  How many and who clicked this button? These are easy to ask, occupy time, fill in KPI cards and are often easy to answer. Why do so few kick back to ask if it is the right question?  Why did they click the button? Oh, we don’t have that data! But we can create constraints that mean we get biased data as we don’t understand human behaviour in context.  ---- In 1973 two behavioural scientists, John Darley and Daniel Batson published " From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of Situational and Dispositional Variables in Helping Behavior ." It was an investigation into the psychology of prosocial behaviour . Darley and Batson picked students who were studying to be priests at the Princeton Theological Seminary to determine how situational factors influenced prosocial behaviour. Hypothesis : When someone is kind to another, is that because he or she has some innate qualities that lead to kindness—or be