41–50 of 58 posts
It's odd to describe Vint Cerf as Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, a largely honorary and emeritus position, as opposed to co-creator of TCP/IP for which is is famous. It makes the headline and framing feel very click-baity. The referenced FTC announcement was titled "Internet Innovator Vinton G. Cerf to Keynote FTC's Internet of Things Workshop".
More people know what Google is than TCP/IP.
Is there any way to make personal data usage within companies more transparent and verifiable? Are there known studies/works in this line of thought? In an ideal world, what can we do to make data usage more transparent?
How would you guarantee privacy by requiring transparency? They are opposites.
Trust is the game changer. We almost take it for granted that increased transparency is inherently good, and we've seen how people's data could be used for good in how countries like S. Korea handled the COVID crisis. Verifiability and transparency are how we achieve trust.
Maybe there should be three terms acknowledged in the study of privacy: Public Obscure Private For the longest time we have interpreted obscurity as privacy. Such as what your house looks like. Or how many people know of your legal immigration status. There are very few pieces of information that are truly private, like social security number, health records (known only by Healthcare providers), and the actions you d…
In the small town he mentions, yes, there's little privacy, but it's constrained to the small town, and largely equal. Everyone knows about everyone.
If someone from outside showed up to ask questions the town would likely protect your privacy, but also let you know someone was asking questions.
Instead today there are corporations (some public, some very secretive) gathering vast amounts of information and it's impossible to know who knows what about you. That information is also much more easily tradable, so it spreads.
For example, in the small town, pre-IT, it was hard to produce consolidated, and deep reporting of who's buying what, beyond the memory of the staff.
Now Target, Amazon, etc can know not just what you're buying, but what you're looking at, and correlate it with information from other sources, and it can be easily correlated with public records, and other information on a scale that's just wasn't ever possible historically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are very few pieces of information that are truly private, like social security number Most countries don't have such a number with such high value.
How do those countries handle taxes, public services, and credit?
It's odd to describe Vint Cerf as Google's Chief Internet Evangelist, a largely honorary and emeritus position, as opposed to co-creator of TCP/IP for which is is famous. It makes the headline and framing feel very click-baity. The referenced FTC announcement was titled "Internet Innovator Vinton G. Cerf to Keynote FTC's Internet of Things Workshop".
How is TCP/IP relevant to his opinions on Privacy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> according to a study by CareerBuilder, nearly 70% of employers screen their candidates using social media and what’s more surprising is 57% of employers are less likely to even contact applicants who lack an online presence [0] [0] https://www.lawdepot.com/blog/should-employers-look-at-socia...
"having an online presence" is a much lower bar than "on social media".
> 57 percent are less likely to interview a candidate they can't find online
> 54 percent have decided not to hire a candidate based on their social media profiles
> Half of employers check current employees' social media profiles, over a third have reprimanded or fired an employee for inappropriate content
> 70 percent of employers use social media to screen candidates, up from 11 percent in 2006
For more than half of the world's population or 80+% of all internet users "an online presence" means precisely "social media". Nothing else comes even close to that. It's also one of the few segments where people use their real identity. Your anonymous HN account will fly under the radar.
Let's not bury our heads in the sand, employers will check social media so they don't hire anyone who's publicly offensive or extremist, unprofessional, trashes their employer, even someone posting too much or with poor communication skills, etc. From a link in the article I posted above [0].
[0] https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/number-of-employers...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HN is an Internet forum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum
Which is one kind of medium for socially interacting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are very few pieces of information that are truly private, like social security number Most countries don't have such a number with such high value.
How do those countries handle taxes, public services, and credit?