My Digital FootPrint

Plotting your view of private self to a public self, against wanting to be more private as a citizen or more public as a person. Broadcast ( where you are public figure) Identity in the form of recognition Professional ( have to be known and have a status) Identity in the form of reputation Obscurity ( ability to hide in plain sight) Identity I am who I say I am (or others) Privacy Laws (where so much case law exists) Identity in the form of want to hide and have protection

The Infinite Regress problem is explained in the two sources below in far more detail. The basis of the idea is that each newly presumed creator of a creator, is itself presumed to have its own creator! In one form created adults create babies whom themselves can create babies and so it goes on. However the purpose of this post is to think about this problem in light of humans creating something (General AI), that itself will create something better than the creator (humans). Source 1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_regress Source 2: http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/infinite_regress.html ----- Starting from the new concept (April 2019) of “Machine Behaviour” which is the thinking from MIT that says we should observe AI and record its action to understand what is going on inside AI. This is the same thinking as observing animal behaviour to determine what an animal may be thinking and their unique personalities. As a observational technique it certainly

image source  thinking about delivering innovation, growth and sustainability by internalising the disruptors within the institution Summary This thought-piece is based on the experience of the author through exposure to the dynamics of corporate actions, startup funding and a little empirical research. The purpose is to present a radically new concept for a corporate structure; because there is a belief that hierarchy and structural issues are the main hurdles preventing corporates implementing truly disruptive strategies which can if implemented using this thinking deliver growth, create innovation and long term sustainability. The title is a play on “No Logo” by Naomi Klein Context We continue to wrestle with an ongoing thought: How should a corporate organise itself to foster entrepreneurship and innovation? Yes, there is an implied assumption here; the belief that in order to grow, thrive and maintain relevance as an organisation, there is a need for innovation and

{portability, sharing, mobility} this is used to provide the widest possible coverage of models and thinking. Portability that the data can move, sharing data as the ability to have access but does not need to move, and mobility as in the data is decentralized ------- Any discussion about personal data leads to opinions being shared about what it means (to someone) based on the position you start from; a personal view is different from a groups view, which is different from a citizens view and different again from an enterprise views. Inevitably there is a heated exchange as one of the parties believes in the purity of their view(point) and model to create a utopia and panacea for everyone. Once we grasp that there are massive gaps, voids and value in any of the starting positions; adding the complexity of assumptions, experiences and data itself, we can look at the different approaches and debate the wide range of solutions. The purpose of this post is to provide a framework

This is an original drawing from My Digital Footprint thinking.  Have been back to the thinking about the two sides of data ( digital footprints) as costs and value. I missed from this "cost and value" what is the cost and value to society of our data.   The cost is one for the state (moving to you and corporate) to pick up that proves assurance about me being me for things like KYC, however it is the value for society that is somewhat more important that just value for me ( as gives trust) My data means that someone else might not suffer, my data means that someone else might get treated quicker, my data means that an error should not get repeated  ... just trying to work out in the equation where this all sits

Have been doing some work and thinking about automated decision making; specifically looking at a credit algorithm. Below are the questions I set the owner of the algorithm to help in the assessment. I am publishing them here in the hope they are helpful. 1. Where did the algorithm come from? What is it providence ? does it have a serial or product number? Which company supplied it ? (inc internal) Who maintains it ? How long has it been in the company? Is there any IP owned by other or the company? 2. Who wrote the algorithm ? ( company, team, individuals) What it a generic algorithm/ bespoke build? What was the acceptance procedure? What else did they write do for the company or others? 3. What data/ processes/ procedures were used to build it  Is it stand alone? What process it is part of ? Are you using the same processes now?  Did it replace a procedure? Where did the data come from to set the boundaries/ maths ?  4. What

Algorithms vs Processes.  In both an input is transformed to an output – there is a difference in HOW.  Algorithm = a set of mathematical instructions or rules that, especially when coded enable a computer to calculate an answer. Typically, specific instructions that can be followed or learnt, that can be mechanised and reduces human involvement to zero. It is a tool it is driven with an idea about better or the most efficient resource allocation. An algorithm is a WHAT and HOW Process = a series or method of tasks/ steps/ actions that are taken in order to achieve a result. Typically, instructions that can be followed or learnt, that enable human and compute/ machine involvement to achieve a set goal, objective or result. A procedure is the prescribed way of undertaking a process. A process is a therefore a WHAT and a procedure is HOW Why important, we debate a lot about the dependence on algorithms in the computer age and how these algorithms will talk over the world and put