My Digital FootPrint

Image: https://cdn-grid.fotosearch.com/CSP/CSP462/opt-out-vs-in-marketing-consent-agree-clip-art__k60530152.jpg Key message : the simple decision about seeking the right “consent” is currently an unseen delegated authority. There is a need to bring back consent decisions to the board. At the board we need to debate consent in light of the ideals such as “privacy by design” and brand position; given that consistency across a business is now more important than a single commercial decision. - o - As a context, much of the classic(al) thinking and definition(s) of consent are here on wikipedia . There is excellent technical work on consent from Kantara for both the user interface and back office processes based on new consent thinking. In the idea of implementing “privacy by design”, I published this blog exploring the concept of Approval vs Forgiveness as the method of gaining consent when considering, specifically, innovation. We explored that the purity of a positio

Follow Meredith Broussard on twitter @merbroussard https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithbroussard/ Highly recommended reading , and if interested also pick up  Weapons of Math Destruction  by Cathy O’Neill  How computers mis understand the world. A great and very accessible book on why understanding the inner workings and outer limits of technology help us appreciate that we should never assume that computers will always get it right. It explores the limits of artificial intelligence (AI) and techno-solutionism, furthermore showing how we can easily replicate existing structural inequalities which is not an achievement. --- This beautifully written book by Meredith Broussard argues that our collective enthusiasm for applying computer technology to every aspect of life has resulted in a tremendous amount of poorly designed systems. We are so eager to do everything digitally; hiring, driving, paying bills, even choosing romantic partners, that we have stopped demanding that our

Thesis : Disrupting the privacy policy to make it do what it says on the tin. we need to shift from the ‘privacy policies’ of companies, which springs from data protection laws, to enabling citizens to gain visibility of what they are signing up to, in regards to their data, and provide ‘privacy’ of individuals, as contemplated by human rights laws . Context Privacy pertains to the person; “privacy” is the state of being free from public attention and unwanted intrusion; Data is not privacy, but data from or about the person can be private or not private depending on how it’s used, who is using it, and who has control of it; In the digital world a person’s privacy policy is like the clothing that one puts on to signal what data they consider private, and what is not private; The view is that companies who respect their customers privacy will be able to build relationships and trust over time - which will create growth, sustainability and deference How: policies that

define: Agency [the ability to shape the context of one’s life] define: Purpose [the belief that there is something beyond your immediate self that matters] define: Belonging [the belief that there is a context to which you matter in turn] define: Power [practical access to genuine opportunities to shape that context] define: Agree [time gives experience which concludes I accept or understand] Run (life) TIME = 0 REPEAT  Agency AND (Purpose, Belonging, Power) = TRUE; TIME = TIME + 1 UNTIL Agree; THEN Print ("I am therefore I now have Identity") End ------ Start here on the Stanford Site talking about Plato In very general terms, an agent is a being with the capacity to act, and ‘agency’ denotes the exercise or manifestation of this capacity.  The philosophy of action provides us with a standard conception and a standard theory of action. The former construes action in terms of intentionality, the latter explains the intentional

Woody Hartzog (Stanford)  ( personal site )  "Control is the wrong goal for privacy by design, perhaps the wrong goal for data protection in general." But isn't control a central tenet of good privacy? It sure is. But it shouldn't be, the author of "Privacy’s Blueprint: The Battle to Control the Design of New Technologies" .  While everyone emphasizes "control" of personal data as core to privacy, too much zeal for control dilutes efforts to design information tech correctly. This idealized idea of control is impossible. Control is illusory. It's a shell game.   It's mediated and engineered to produce a particular control. Design is everything. Hear Hartzog's further thoughts in this engaging presentation from Europe's largest privacy thought-leadership event.

NO TIME TO READ AI RESEARCH? WE SUMMARIZED TOP 2018 PAPERS FOR YOU reference - excellent Source : https://www.topbots.com/most-important-ai-research-papers-2018/

Source https://qz.com/1525661/your-digital-identity-has-three-layers-and-you-can-only-protect-one-of-them/amp/ My version of the concept is here  from 2009 I would add to this excellent work by  Katarzyna Szymielewicz  that it is not about me and my data and what analysis of my data tells anyone.  It is about all data, and once anything leaves my head it is shared.  There once was a (useful) set of boundaries and limits to the capability that sharing of data could produce; now there is no boundary and no limit. Get the full version  here