Joined 14 years ago
Lots of coverage around the time of the Queen's death and unsurprisingly in the news now given the coronation. Little to no media coverage at any other time and has very little public support albeit growing support in certain demographics.
Where does one draw the line though? ESG[1] is becoming increasingly important to investors and I already see financial institutions instituting controls in their apps around gambling [2].
When should large companies with sufficient reach implement opportunities to address social harms?
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/environmental-social-an... [2] https://monzo.com/blog/2018/06/19/gambling-block-self-exclus...
They sent me a screenshot of what should be a form in a modal but the modal has failed to load so it has loaded just the form in a new page looking pretty unstyled. The JS for the modal uses fetch() so possibly why it broke.
I'm 95% sure that the browser in the screenshot is IE10. I pointed them to this announcement if only to make them aware of the security risks in running IE10 but it beggars belief that anyone would choose to run IE10, individual or enterprise.
PSD2 is the Second Payment Services Directive from the EU. A directive is required to be implemented in national law no more than two years after it is passed and whilst there have been delays, the past 12 months have seen a ramping up of banks implementing Strong Customer Authentication.
3DS (3D Secure) is like 2FA for debit/credit cards. In my case, I bank with Monzo and if a transaction requires 3DS, I have to open the Monzo app on my phone and confirm it. There are other aspects to SCA e.g. if I have used contactless payment frequently, I am more likely to be prompted to enter my PIN to confirm I still have my card.
[1] https://stripe.com/gb/payments/strong-customer-authenticatio... [2] https://leavetrackapp.com/
This book is a chilling insight into the state of criminal justice: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-Barrister-Stories-Law-Broken...
Read the judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Hamilton...
The Post Office knew Horizon had faults and had a legal duty to disclose its knowledge to the defendants when prosecuting them. They failed to do so.
Paragraphs 81-90 are frankly unbelievable and I question what Post Office's own lawyers were doing.
Paragraph 91(iii):
A memorandum dated 22 October 2010 by a senior lawyer in POL’s Criminal Law Division reported the successful prosecution of Seema Misra. The memorandum complained that the case had involved “an unprecedented attack on the Horizon system” which, the author said, the prosecution team had been able to “destroy”. He ended the memorandum, which was copied to the Press Office, by expressing the hope that “the case will set a marker to dissuade other defendants from jumping on the Horizon bashing bandwagon”.
The prosecution team had "destroyed" it because they had withheld crucial evidence supporting the allegations against the Horizon system.
The Seema Misra case is what started the unravelling because her husband called a journalist, Nick Wallis [1], who has spent 10 years investigating and reporting on this case.
It's a scandal of immense proportions and three convicted individuals died before seeing their convictions quashed. It is very sad.
Absolutely not the case. If one cannot afford a solicitor one will be appointed.
This is a fundamental breach of the prosecutor's duty to disclose any evidence that undermines the prosecution case or supports the defence case. This duty continues to exist after conviction so timing of knowledge is irrelevant.
The judgment is telling in that there are records in which Post Office officials made statements that minutes of meetings about faults in the Horizon system should not be taken so as to avoid having to disclose them in proceedings.
It is corporate failure on an unimaginable scale and three convicted individuals have died before having their convictions quashed.
Yesterday's judgment is long but very readable. I would anticipate further fallout and understand there may be a live police investigation on the basis that several individuals may have perverted the course of justice by either proceeding with prosecutions or omitting material evidence from testimony.
No it doesn't and yes it is.
Nowhere in the GDPR or in the UK implementation does it say that recipients need to be informed of pixels in and of themselves.
What it does say is that when you obtain the recipients' personal details you must provide them with a privacy notice setting out what data you collect and what you do with it. The privacy notice needs to be provided on collection of their data (when directly collected) or within 30 days of collection if from a third party.
There is no reason to not obtain consent to tracking but to suggest it's the only lawful basis on which to process the data is not correct. Subject to completion of an impact assessment, one could make a case that it falls under legitimate interests depending on the degree of processing of the tracking data e.g. the more that such data is used to inform further targeting of the individual vs. say aggregation of data for improving engagement.
I agree with your underlying point though - I turned off tracking (I use Postmark for transactional emails) because I don't really care about open rate and click rate etc. If my customers want to ignore the emails from the service it's up to them.
The system has a ratings module (not active yet) whereby clients can rate the worker and vice versa. The system then makes decisions on future job releases based on the ratings. Part of the reason for not having the module active is due to the issue of communicating to the affected users how those decisions are being made and providing them with a right of manual review.
As organisations increasingly rely on AI or ML to make decisions affecting individuals, so the need for greater transparency into those decision making processes so they can be communicated to the people concerned.
The recruitment of ex-offenders is such a story from both sides. Nobody really cares about the story of the top engineer getting a job at Google but there is a resonance with the story of the ex-offender who had looked for 6 months for a job and finally an employer took a chance on them using 70 million jobs etc...
If I am a hiring manager and I am rejecting 1/2 resumes as opposed to 1/4, I'd question what the search firm is doing.
If I was to say more on 10 BY 10 it's that I don't see the differentiator. Plenty of search firms are staffed by people with domain knowledge and the pre-screening of resumes by an expert or qualifying candidate interest prior to resume submission are not significant enough to differentiate in that space.
If I was to be cynical, I'd say that going through YC gives them access to a lot of prospective clients because I fail to see why any particular significant investment would be needed to start a search firm.
I see the TC article talks about a marketplace so perhaps there is a development down the line of what their solution looks like.
