The base model of this Volvo can park itself. Having it miss pedestrians along the way is an optional add-on.
(If you really want a revenue stream then stand up the app to offer acceleration for free but couple it with an electronic payment system for pay-per-brake.)
… many of them state of Maryland employees who had to divulge personal data as a condition of getting affordable health insurance.
The banner news is that CareFirst, a large health insurer, suffered a data spill in June affecting over a million participants. The company claims that no SSNs were lost, nor insurance claims, but some who monitor these things are careful to note how the statement was parsed; the company did not speak to the administrative records of their participants, which now contain an immense amount of highly personal information.
In question is the integrity of data which are associated with wellness programs which are now increasingly mandated by employers – not least of which is the state Maryland. This year employees (many of them at University of Maryland on our campus) have been required to participate in these wellness programs, which entail disclosing personal medical information to people who are not your doctor, who later will determine what remedial ‘wellness’ activities you must engage in order to only pay normal health insurance rates. Those who do not disclose will pay penalty rates, which soon will skyrocket to thousands of dollars. It is a coercive and punitive system, which also indirectly transfers more costs to the participants in the long run. (Only the state will save – not the employees.)
Which brings us back to CareFirst. This insurer is one of the banner programs offered to us as employees, and it is known to be the most invasive in its questioning. “Are you happy at work?” “Do you like your boss?” “Do you feel you satisfy your partner?” “Do you keep guns in the home?” “Do you take recreational drugs?” “How much alcohol do you drink in a week?”
These questions sure seem pretty invasive. And their answers, from potentially thousands of Maryland employees who disclosed them under threat of state cost penalties, are now out on the internet and ready to be disclosed to the world.
John Deere is trying to convince the Copyright Office that farmers don’t really own the tractors they buy from them. They argue that the computer code that runs the systems is not for sale, and that purchasers of the hardware are simply receiving “an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle.”
This is a variation on the already long-running debate over whether automobile manufacturers have a lock on the firmware which drives their engines. Hobbyists know they can get far higher performance out of their rods by tweaking parameters and tailoring the control system to more specific needs. Of course, manufacturers are tuning their firmware for ’emissions control’ needs and other regulations. The upshot is that big corporations are rapidly making it illegal for people to manipulate goods that they own – err, or if you buy the corporate-speak, “license”.
The role of Google in liberal politics – especially President Obama’s campaign – is highlighted in this article. Besides providing cash, they provided big infrastructure and small nuances (times millions of searches) to influence consumers of political news and activate voters – at least ones who would produce the right outcomes.
For years, RadioShack made a habit of collecting customers’ contact information at checkout. Now, the bankrupt retailer is putting that data on the auction block.
A list of RadioShack assets for sale includes more than 65 million customer names and physical addresses, and 13 million email addresses. Bloomberg reports that the asset sale may include phone numbers and information on shopping habits as well.
The auction is already over, with Standard General—a hedge fund and RadioShack’s largest shareholder—reportedly emerging as the victor. But a bankruptcy court still has to approve the deal, and RadioShack faces a couple legal challenges in turning over customer data.
How inconvenient.
Remember, data are forever.
But of course, there is no real news in that revelation.
Two Wall Street Journal articles address this in some detail. One details an FTC probe into Google practices (including the FTC leadership’s decision to override staff recommendations and not pursue the company) and another discusses the effects of Google’s manipulation.
The focus of this reporting was on results which favored the company commercially. Less prominent, but no less important in this study, is that Google manipulates results in order to favor social issues preferred by the company.
We have often written of what levels of misdirection in accounting are enabled by leadership’s array of foundations, which take off the state books a lot of the things which are associated which perqs of being in charge. Unrestricted travel? Parties? Booze? President’s mansions? No problem. Of course, campus leaders don’t quite characterize such accounts this way – but the misdirection is well understood by all the locals.
Previously we referred to these as ‘off shore’ accounts, but it turns out that was not just flip – it was real. The Sun reports on the University of Maryland Foundation’s accounts in the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands.
Regulars here know that most privacy laws are just window dressing around an active industry based on the trade of your personal information. Here is an accessible summary of one way that happens with respect to your prescription drug purchases.
It’s called ‘prescription match back’ and any computer science major will understand the algorithmic basis for it. Just choose the hash function on names in a way that matches how hashes of open data are computed, and just match ’em up. Gosh. Almost like it was arranged that way. Who’d have guessed?
There is no news in this for folks who follow privacy issues here, but it is a nice reminder. Uber triggered an internet kerfuffle when its CEO suggested consumers should find and weaponize data about journalists who he thought had just written critically of his company. Quoting the linked article:
An Uber executive’s suggestion that the company should investigate the private lives of journalists has sparked a backlash against the popular car service, offering a potent reminder that tech companies are amassing detailed — and potentially embarrassing — records of users’ communications, Internet traffic and even physical movements.
He’s had to walk that back (quickly) but the whole exchange reminds people of what they usually want to forget – that these companies posses (and increasingly leverage) immense data about our daily lives. Consider just what Uber has and could use, as they stated in their blog about rides of glory, or said carefully, Uber knows where you been.
Most consumers try hard not to think about how much they rely on the restraint of others who have no self-interest in protecting privacy yet every self-interest in exploiting information. Most try hard to be naive. Many later get a rude surprise.
Major auto makers address the question of how to deal with your data. They promise to be good.
Remember, cars are no longer something that gets value for a company up front – now that they are rolling computers, the potential is for on-going revenue. We’re probably not quite to the point where they will give you a car in return for free access to your information, but there is plenty of potential value in tracking your location, listening, searching and browsing habits. What would a pizza company pay to be able to direct you to specials if they’re on your route? To bring them in more business?
They’ll be good. They promise.