"Their argument: Since the tech industry is populated by meritocratic rationalists, it would be impossible for a talented female engineer not to rise to the top. Therefore, if few women are in
the industry, the problem is not sexism but the absence of some innate capacity or interest on the part of (most) women. In other words, the dearth of women in tech is only natural. […] The proportion
of programmers in India who are women is at least 30 percent. In the US it’s 21 percent. And this despite the fact that by most indexes - economic opportunity, educational attainment, health - women in
India have access to a narrower set of opportunities than women in the United States. So unless nature is working contrarily in South Asia, something about the culture of the Indian educational system and
tech industry is more hospitable to women than the American one. If we can figure out what that difference is, we can begin to change things for the better in the US."
"As legal systems differ throughout the world there are significant differences in how Free and Open Source Software licenses are treated in different countries, and it can be difficult to
obtain reliable information on national interpretations. The International Free and Open Source Software Law Book engages with this by providing a clear yet thorough analysis of Free and Open Source legal
matters written and maintained by local experts, and by inviting everyone to assist in improving or expanding the content."
"The thought process behind non-anonymity is simple, in that anyone who has their identity attached to their comments will be more careful about what they say in a digital forum because it can
be traced back to their family and career. But to believe that a system of name verification would deter uncivil discourse, we’d have to believe that all off-color comments are the results of malicious
intent, that is, comments specifically for the purpose of aggravation, to cause harm or instill fear. Purposefully hurtful comments would be embarrassing or harmful to attach to your name, the opinions
you want to hide from your family and job. But, the truth is that many vitriolic comments come from readers who are proud to associate these views with their identity."
"The fiasco I want to talk about is the World Wide Web, specifically, the advertising-supported, ‘free as in beer’ constellation of social networks, services, and content that represents so
much of the present day web industry. I’ve been thinking of this world, one I’ve worked in for over 20 years, as a fiasco since reading a lecture by Maciej Cegłowski, delivered at the Beyond Tellerrand
web design conference. Cegłowski is an important and influential programmer and an enviably talented writer. His talk is a patient explanation of how we’ve ended up with surveillance as the default, if
not sole, internet business model. The talk is hilarious and insightful, and poignant precisely for the reasons Carlson’s story is. The internet spies at us at every twist and turn not because Zuckerberg,
Brin, and Page are scheming, sinister masterminds, but due to good intentions gone awry."
"There is a clear trend in the discourse surrounding surveillance: new technologies are analogised to a less powerful, pervasive and intrusive technology by only considering a single common function. This narrow logic strips the technology of important capabilities and novel contexts in which it can be used. It is not that analogies are inherently problematic, but rather significant problems arise when they are used by courts to only focus on a single dimension of the technology. Such analogies generate a cursory understanding and subsequently, courts ignore areas of warranted concern. As a recent encouraging US Supreme Court opinion puts it in perhaps the most appropriate use of an analogy, likening a search of a cell phone to a container ‘is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon. Both are ways of getting from point A to point B, but little else justifies lumping them together."
"Do Not Track, or more specifically the Tracking Preference Expression and Tracking Compliance and Scope specifications, is an internet privacy standard that allows users to signal their preferences for being tracked or not online. The standard is a mess, an epic farrago unfolding in slow motion. It’s unfinished and the subject of fundamental disagreement, but also, strangely, in active use. It’s never actually failed but it can never succeed. Like a giant glacier it’s slowly melting away beneath us. Eventually we’ll notice we’re stood on bare rock and it’s gone completely but until then we’ll wake up each day with nothing more interesting to wonder at than an occasional dampness in our shoes."
"The fact that computers, external file storage and cloud servers are employed does not require one to alter the high threshold that must be met to justify government intrusion. Each new
technology that affords a different type of private place to preserve private communications does not require a different standard for the search and seizure of its contents than is constitutionally
required for the search of a file cabinet or the search of a home. What is different is the amount of private information that can be improperly searched and the substantially greater intrusion upon
privacy and Fourth Amendment interests that may result. One must look to the Fourth Amendment to define the limits of such searches and then ask whether the existing policies, procedures and guidelines
applied to the technologies of the day appropriately mirror our fundamental constitutional values. Currently, they do not. The starting point cannot be that everything is fair game."
"The National Programme for IT in the [National Health Service] (NPfIT) was the largest public sector IT programme ever attempted in the UK, originally budgeted to cost approximately £6
billion over the lifetime of the major contracts. After a history marked by delays, stakeholder opposition and implementation issues, the programme was dismantled by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat
Government in 2011, almost ten years after Prime Minister Tony Blair initiated it at a seminar in Downing Street in 2002."
"As we look at the dynamic change shaping today’s data-driven world, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. We really do not know that much about it. Polarized along competing but
fundamental principles, the global dialogue on personal data is inchoate and pulled in a variety of directions. It is complicated, conflated and often fueled by emotional reactions more than informed
understandings. The World Economic Forum’s global dialogue on personal data seeks to cut through this complexity. A multi-year initiative with global insights from the highest levels of leadership from
industry, governments, civil society and academia, this work aims to articulate an ascendant vision of the value a balanced and human-centred personal data ecosystem can create."
"The message arrives on my ‘clean machine,’ a MacBook Air loaded only with a sophisticated encryption package. ‘Change in plans,’ my contact says. - Be in the lobby of the Hotel ______ by 1
pm. Bring a book and wait for ES to find you.’ ES is Edward Snowden, the most wanted man in the world. For almost nine months, I have been trying to set up an interview with him - traveling to Berlin, Rio
de Janeiro twice, and New York multiple times to talk with the handful of his confidants who can arrange a meeting. Among other things, I want to answer a burning question: What drove Snowden to leak
hundreds of thousands of top-secret documents, revelations that have laid bare the vast scope of the government’s domestic surveillance programs?"
"This request for investigation arises from research by the Center for Digital Democracy (CDD) and its ongoing investigation of data marketing and profiling companies that have joined to the
U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework, as developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and formally accepted by the European Commission (EC). These 30 companies (data marketing and profiling companies) are
similar in that they collect, use and share EU consumers’ personal information to create digital profiles about them, analyze their behavior, and use the data to make marketing and related decisions
regarding each of them. While these companies are largely unknown to EU citizens, they pride themselves on knowing everything about individuals and how to comprehensively profile and target them. The
commercial surveillance of EU consumers by U.S. companies, without consumer awareness or meaningful consent, contradicts the fundamental rights of EU citizens and European data protection laws, and also
violates the intention of the Safe Harbor mechanism to adequately protect EU consumers’ personal information. This filing is intended to provide the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with factual information
and legal analysis on probable violations of Safe Harbor commitments that materially mislead EU consumers."
"Digital technologies, commonly referred to as cyber systems, are a security paradox: Even as they grant unprecedented powers, they also make users less secure. Their communicative
capabilities enable collaboration and networking, but in so doing they open doors to intrusion. Their concentration of data and manipulative power vastly improves the efficiency and scale of operations,
but this concentration in turn exponentially increases the amount that can be stolen or subverted by a successful attack. The complexity of their hardware and software creates great capability, but this
complexity spawns vulnerabilities and lowers the visibility of intrusions. Cyber systems’ responsiveness to instruction makes them invaluably flexible; but it also permits small changes in a component’s
design or direction to degrade or subvert system behavior. These systems’ empowerment of users to retrieve and manipulate data democratizes capabilities, but this great benefit removes safeguards present
in systems that require hierarchies of human approvals. In sum, cyber systems nourish us, but at the same time they weaken and poison us."
"Data has many and varied sources. It may originate from individuals, groups or machines in a private or public environment, geared towards market or non-market wealth generation. It is
increasingly processed, stored, exchanged and aggregated, and has become a critical input and a key driver for the new economy, enabling new value chains to be established. Platforms benefit from
collecting this readymade and easily-accessible commodity together with an increasing stream of personal data and digital footprints. These represent yield value that grows with user traffic and the
widening of the catchment area. The very nature of data is currently being debated. Is it an unsaleable asset, a common asset, private transferable property, or a right of use or usage? There are also
many ethical and economic issues, as well as issues concerning the enforcement of fundamental freedoms. This new economic and social landscape has to be organised, in compliance with core values to
guarantee sustainable development."
"Thank you for inviting Google representatives to the meeting organized on July 24 by the Article 29 Working Party with three US-based search engines to discuss the challenges of implementing
the European Court of Justice’s recent decision in the ‘Costeja’ case. Please find below the responses to the questionnaire that you sent to us. In the interest of transparency, we will follow your lead
and make our responses public."
"The Court’s interpretation of Article 12 of the 1995 Data Protection Directive, which was drafted three years before Google was founded, has resulted in the ruling that the search engine’s European sites must process more than 70,000 data removal requests that it has received since its web form went live on 30th May, 17 days after the judgment. After having heard evidence from data protection experts, the Information Commissioner’s Office, the Minister for Justice and Civil Liberties, Simon Hughes, and Google itself, the Committee recommends that the UK Government must continue to fight to ensure that the updated Regulation no longer includes any provision on the lines of the Commission’s ‘right to be forgotten’ or the European Parliament’s ‘right to erasure’."