fweespee_ch
Joined 10 years ago
Karma
607
Submissions
264
Member since
Mar 8
Recent submissions
Comment · 10 years ago
Comment · 10 years ago
This is sadly one of those situations where the guy's heart is in the right place but he is simply wrong on the number.
$11-15[1] by 2020 is a reasonable national range for a minimum wage with certain states/localities raising it higher. The simple fact is, the peach picker in rural Georgia has a lower cost of living than the Subway "sandwhich artist" in NYC.
[1] 2016 Dollars, permanently adjusting for inflation against 2016 USD indefinitely. This whole "random correct every so often" is simply disruptive to both businesses and workers since it makes projection difficult compared to small, annual raises linked to inflation.
Comment · 10 years ago
> Microsoft has retroactively removed the ability of companies to turn off access to the Windows Store in its Windows 10 Pro version.
Yes but by "upsell" you mean "extort by way of feature removal after the product was purchased".
Comment · 10 years ago
> It's trivially easy for Google to do this already without the NHS data, and they don't face prison time for doing it. See all the pregnant teens outed by supermarket loyalty cards for other examples.
And how many members of the general population do you think are aware of this?
> I understand "the" NHS is complex, but it's pretty frustrating talking to someone who has very strong opinions and who clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
It probably has something to do with the fact you are completely missing the point I'm discussing rather than the strength of my opinions.
Comment · 10 years ago
Well, they'd also need the codebook where you store the passphrase to get the other half of the password.
So if you change the master password regularly, they'd need to hack a database in that time window and steal your codebook. I highly doubt anyone would put that level of effort in.
Comment · 10 years ago
1) I have a disagreement with bait and switch data privacy laws that are publicly sold as anonymous when everyone can tell from the implementation details that they are not.
2) You asked why they were astonished. Well, #1 is why. Most people don't have the time/energy/desire to study the implementation details on every facet of their lives.
Comment · 10 years ago
Its psuedononymous data the NHS has previously admitted can be deanonymized given sufficient effort but such deanonymization carries criminal and civil penalties.
Comment · 10 years ago
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-16021240
> "All necessary safeguards would be in place to ensure protection of patients' details - the data will be anonymised and the process will be carefully and robustly regulated.
> "Proper regulation and essential safeguards need to be in place when it comes to patients data," he said. "It cannot be done in a way where essential rules are threatened."
The legality of these data sharing laws start off with public promises of anonymization, robust regulation, safeguards, and privacy.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/2014/01/geraint-lewis/
> Amber data are where we remove each patient’s identifiers (their date of birth, postcode, and so on) and replace them with a meaningless pseudonym that bears no relationship to their “real world” identity. Amber data are essential for tracking how individuals interact with the different parts of the NHS and social care over time. For example, using amber data we can see how the NHS cares for cohorts of patients who are admitted repeatedly to hospital but who seldom visit their GP. In theory, a determined analyst could attempt to re-identify individuals within amber data by linking them to other data sets. For this reason, we never publish amber data. Instead, amber data are only made available under a legal contract to approved analysts for approved purposes. The contract stipulates how the data must be stored and protected, and how the data must be destroyed afterwards. Any attempt to re-identify an individual is strictly prohibited and there is a range of criminal and civil penalties for any infringements.
The problem with psuedonymous data is the NHS basically admits it can be used to identify people given sufficient effort.
---
That is why people are "astonished" by these decisions. The politician provides the initial promises that imply anonymity, the implementation doesn't provide true anonymity but provides criminal penalties for pulling off the mask, and then the data is handed to enough 3rd parties if such data is leaked its likely impossible to know by whom unless the data was tampered with to provide a per-contract identifier.
I understand this specific decision did not involve a politician but the conversation was why people are surprised. How many people do you think really know the anonymity originally promised became a permeable pseudonym?
Comment · 10 years ago
> Why are people astonished?
Because politicians keep making promises in regards to privacy that they don't keep in regards to "confidential" information.
Similarly, most of the medical value from such information [e.g. Frequency of X within a given population fitting certain characteristics] would likely deanonymize people.
Comment · 10 years ago
> To me that's just bizarre. It's like Trump saying he'd be a great president and Obama meeting with him and saying he's the real deal, it'd just wouldn't happen.
It would happen if Gavin was Satoshi. Gavin attempts to permanently deflect things on to a smooth talking conman with liquidity problems to maintain his privacy.
Hell, he could even give Wright some of the bitcoins as payment for the cover.
Honestly, shoplifting and other small scale financial crime committed by individuals who are not conspiring, should be largely considered in financial terms.