> What, exactly, should Walmart's response to shoplifting be? The article seems to make a point of the low dollar-value of some of the items stolen vs. how much the police spend arresting the subjects. I fail to see why the value of the stolen goods matters from a illegality perspective; it's not like Walmart can punish the shoplifters themselves.
Honestly, shoplifting and other small scale financial crime committed by individuals who are not conspiring, should be largely considered in financial terms.
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.
I suspect that the removal is actually an artifact of them saying that later versions of Windows will be incremental updates to Windows 10. Normally they would just wait until Windows 11 to make the change, but since they can't do that any more, they just roll it out in an update.
Yeah it was a bait-and-switch for small businesses.
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.
I kind of expect that if a determined hacker targets you (or me) specifically, we will get pwnt. The tradeoff is in how determined the hacker is and what the payoff is.
Its psuedononymous data the NHS has previously admitted can be deanonymized given sufficient effort but such deanonymization carries criminal and civil penalties.
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.
> "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.
> 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?
This Google thing has fuck all to do with care.data - they're totally separate.
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's really weird to link to a document that talks about the severe legal penalties for anyone who attempts to de-anonymise the data, and then use that to say "look how flimsy these agreements are!", especially when the document you link to has a BOLD lead saying that things are even stricter in the newer document.
> The problem with psuedonymous data is the NHS basically admits it can be used to identify people given sufficient effort.
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.
> 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.
>> The problem with psuedonymous data is the NHS basically admits it can be used to identify people given sufficient effort.
It seems you have disagreement with the system adopted by NHS and several others worldwide. This has nothing to do with Google or Politicians. The system emerged from decades of research and understanding of compromise between the need to protect privacy and advancement of medical research. You are free to suggest alternatives over current system. I have studied this problem for last five years and there isn't a simple solution.
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.
> 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.
While I won't speculate whether Gavin is Satoshi or not, it does seem to me like it's more likely that Satoshi would continue participating in bitcoin under a different name rather than quitting altogether. It's hard to stay away from online communities that you're invested in, but one might want to push the "reset" button on their reputation, which is something the internet uniquely allows one to do. I believe it's plausible that Satoshi's beliefs in decentralization and consensus caused him to shelve the BDFL mantle so that his ideas could compete on their own merits.
But then why not give Wright some convincing evidence to share in public, rather than this weird round-about of using BS public evidence, and then claiming to have seen "secret" convincing evidence? This doesn't only make the case for Wright being Satoshi weaker in the public eye, but draws attention to Gavin. Hardly "deflecting things"
> About 2 years ago the tenor of the publications shifted from libertarian to more and more reactionary (bordering on proto-fascist). When I skip the articles nowdays, I think that the authors have no problem with authoritarianism, as long as taxes are reduced and social welfare is gutted (it is obviously not stated as such, but most opinion-pieces speak for themself).
I think the problem with this is their ideological goals are to starve the beast and play at being antiestablishment. They were always unscrupulous about the how and have been since at least 2011 when I first noticed they existed.
I honestly don't think the tone has changed substantially.
> (Bloomberg LP competes with Zero Hedge in providing financial news and information.)
Does anyone else feel this is particularly generous?
ZeroHedge is borderline conspiracy theorist nonsense surrounded by occasionally correct financial analysis with a level of accuracy on par with a dart board.
Honestly, shoplifting and other small scale financial crime committed by individuals who are not conspiring, should be largely considered in financial terms.