dgmdoug
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
To suggest there is a 'fair right' to data behind encryption for goverment use, to my mind, somewhat misses the point of encryption and privacy in general. This is the point I believe we should be arguing.
Your representaiton of the article as a 'declaration against encryption' somewhat undermines this argument, and polarises it into an 'us vs them' debate.
For accuracy, this document is titled:
"Draft Council Declaration on Encryption - Security through encryption and security despite encryption"
Its pretty handwavy, overly general, and seems to call for some sort of 'back door' from the tech companies. Missing the point really, anybody wishing to use strong encryption for criminal purpoes can do so so with very few resources, and quite independently.
Or could it be a self reported survey says more about the perception of 'cool' subversive behaviours amongst that group than it's prevalence? I'd buy the latter over the former. You only have to wander around a university campus nowadays to understand the the days of overindulgence in drink/drugs are over -- and that being a self-identified entrepreneur or hacker is de rigeur.
This! If anything I think the challenge provided us with a reason to explore. Things weren't always easy and that made it fun.
What WB discusses is a common misconception. Just because it doesn't appear to work for yourself, doesn't mean that targeting is not worthwhile. It's not really designed for an improved user experience, but to provide an advantage to those running the ad campaigns.
The crucial thing that people forget, is that that targeting only has to be a little bit better than random to be worth doing (from the ad operations perspective). Given a large number of ads shown every day, with nominal cost, we've only got to push a fraction of those toward users with a slightly better propensity to interact to increase the interaction rate, and get paid more from the advertiser (presuming a model where the advertiser pays us based upon interactions that we generate).
One of the reasons that it is profitable is that the amount we might get paid for an interaction could 50p, £1 or even £10 depending upon the client and media. The cost of showing that ad is a few pence per thousand! So, we can get it wrong many many times, and still show a statistically significant improvement in interaction rates and make a huge dent in profitability for ourselves.
I discuss all of this in Chapter 5 of Algorithms of the Intelligent Web. 2nd Ed. https://www.manning.com/books/algorithms-of-the-intelligent-...
With technology a key and growing industry within the UK, shouldn't we expect our leaders to at least attempt to understand the issues around governance?
It seems to me that we should stop standing on each side of the fence and looking down on each other, and start working together. We might actually achieve something great it if we do that.
Regards the OP, if it was the right time for him/her to leave, that's great. Nobody should continue on a path that they do not find fulfilling. It says nothing about academia, or industry though. It only reveals the feelings of the author.
The true travesty here, is that he/she will find it extremely difficult to pick up that work again and find a place in a university if they change their mind in the future. Our system in the UK is broken, since you only get a single shot at academia -- unless of course you are independently wealthy.
Perhaps this is the cause of the divide. You are either in, or you are out -- and once you make your choice there is no going back.