VoteRonaldRayGun
Highest Rated Comments
VoteRonaldRayGun36 karma
You would be amazed at how people can be identified with very little information.
If we have three sets of information; A, B, and C, but we remove A because it's directly identifiable stuff, that still leaves us with two sets of data. On their own, B and C might be anonymous. However combining both B and C which are used in separate places, could well allow people to be identified.
So even seemingly innocent information needs to be kept under strict confidentiality.
VoteRonaldRayGun14 karma
The DA can also be pretty damn aggressive. It's more like two extremes trying to balance out.
In Australia all lawyers have a first duty to the court, which I feel discourages the underhanded stuff seen in America.
VoteRonaldRayGun14 karma
No, Starbucks has always had a corporate open door policy, but individual managers and so forth essentially enforced their own.
VoteRonaldRayGun101 karma
Hi,
I've worked on privacy and data policy, but one issue that comes up every time government use of data appears is privacy.
I'm wondering how you think governments can better balance the need for transparency, good use of data, and personal privacy? Especially as the goals of transparency and privacy can often conflict with each other.
View HistoryShare Link