Just to be clear: Where do all the fines that will rain like hail from heck once GDPR comes into force, go to ..? Yes the supervisory authority may levy the fines, but it isn’t clear to whom the payment should go. Certainly leading to huge differences in compliance chasing: When the auth may keep them for themselves, they’re a. richer than the king since b. sure to penalise each and every futile infringement to the max; when the money goes to government’s coffers, that chasing not so much because who’d care?
You don’t believe me, right? Just wait and see. And weep.
Category: Sociological, psychological notes
Full cite of important stuff
This being a complete citation of important stuff, on various subjects in one – meaning, that the brillantly brief once more applies to various trades and aspects, for your information:
With the sound off or on?
If you watch a well-directed film with the sound turned off, you’ll get a lot out of it. On the other hand, it takes practice to read a screenplay and truly understand it.
It’s worth remembering that we lived in tribes for millennia, long before we learned how to speak. Emotional connection is our default. We only added words and symbolic logic much later.
There are a few places where all that matters is the words. Where the force of logic is sufficient to change the moment.
The rest of the time, which is almost all the time, the real issues are trust, status, culture, pheromones, peer pressure, urgency and the energy in the room.
It probably pays to know which kind of discussion you’re having.
By Seth Godin, as you may have derived from the style and profundity. (As per here, which is literally the same text – told you so – but also add the Head to your daily reading list! [Noticed that Head thing, intended to refer to a List structure, is a pun when you see the image to click on his blog…].)
Which all relates to a. Privacy [yes it does, just think it through] and b. your IAM ideas, ever in renewal since … decades; plus c. the ‘GRC’ eager beavers — that at last are pushed back, softly and hardly noticably, by counterforces-undetermined that want their space to innovate back. And d. <fill in yourself and colour the pictures>.
Oh, and:
[Marketing -, or was it Design, Department at some Toronto institute]
Fake your news
So this is your future, part II:
Fake news is (to be – timeframe in question is ..?) battled by platforms that have full control over just about everything out there. By whatever algorithm these might bring to bear, most probably with a dose of ill-aligned AI creating a filter bubble of the most beneficial to the platforms kind for sure which is the most profitable one to their *paying* customers which is the ad industry which hence is by definition detrimental to the users, the global general public (sic).
Thus suppressing Original Content by users that isn’t verifiable against the ever narrowing ‘truth’ definitions that benefit the platforms.
Thus installing the most massive censorship ever dreamt of.
And despite some seemingly (!) benign user support in this …
In the olden days, anything of such ubiquity that it was factually (sic) a (inter)national utility, was nationalised to bring it under direct control of the People.
May we now see the appropriation of Fb by the UN due to exactly the same reason ..?
One can hope..? Plus:
[Rosy window on the world ..? Not even that; Zuid-As Amsterdam]
Behaviour is key to security — but what if it’s perfect?
When the latest news on information security points in the direction, away from reliance on technical stuff, of the humans that you still can’t get rid of (yet!), all are aboard the ‘Awareness is just the first step, you’ll need to change the actual behaviour of users‘ train. Or should be, should have been, already for a number of years.
In Case You Missed It, the Technology side of information security has so far always gobbled up the majority of your respective budgets, with all of the secondary costs to that, buried in General Expenses. And the effectivity of the spend … has been great! Not that your organisation is anywhere near as secure as it could reasonably have been, but at least the majority of attackers rightly focus not on technology (anymore – though still a major headache) but on the feckle user discipline. Oh how dumb and incompetent these users are; there will always be some d.face that falls for some social engineering scam. Sometimes an extremely clever one, when focusing at generic end users deep down in your organisation, sometimes a ridiculously simple and straightforward one when targeting your upper management – zero sophistication needed, there.
The point is, there will always be some d.face that makes an honest mistake. If you don’t want that, you’ll have to get rid of all humans and then end up overlording robots (in the AI sense, not their superfluous physical representation) that will fail because those underling users of old held all the flexibility of your organisation to external pressures and innovation challenges.
Which means you’re stuck with those no-good [i.e., good for each and every penny of your atrocious bonus payments] humans for a while.
Better train them to never ever deviate from standard procedures, right?
Wrong.
Since this: Though the title may look skewed and it is, there’s much value in the easy step underpinning the argument; indeed repetitive work makes users’ innate flexibility explode in uncontrolled directions.
So, the more you coax users into compliance, the worse the deviations will get. As elucidated, e.g., here [if you care to study after the pic; study you’ll need to make something of the dense prose; ed.].
So, here too your information security efforts may go only so far; you must train your users forever, but not too much or they’ll just noncomply in possibly worse directions.
Oh well:
[Yeah, Amsterdam; you know where exactly this depicts your efforts – don’t complai about pic quality when it was taken through a tram’s window…]
The Sixties, rehashed ..?
Quo vadis; society ..? This now has an answer: We’ll have a rehash of the 19-30s and -60s (/-70s) in one.
When the 1%ers slash Military-Industrial Complex slash totalitarians claim to want unfettered market economies for all even when they pursue an absolute, complete Big Government / monopoly society, even pushing IoT for the purpose of providing Big Brother with total surveillance capabilities under the guise of ‘citizen’-supporting ambient intelligence Oxford, and pushing VR as a tool for mind control (sucking everyone (?) into the blue pill illusions of the Matrix),
And on the opposite end we have a continued strive for the Commons-Arcadia of small businesses (not much beyond mom-and-pop freelance gigs) everywhere on a level playing (sic) field where Experiencing Nature in te Great Outdoors (soon trampled by the masses, and not too wild and Unknown), with IoT as tool for healthy slash sustainable living for all and VR as just a small-scope tool,
The Sixties / Ealy-Seventies are back. Much more transparent (also qua disruptors’ identities, whereabouts, and culpability vv the Law…), much more (yes indeed) ground to cover, to loosen up societies’ structures much more extensively — due to backlog, backfire and backlash since the last Aquarius rush (80s-10s). Even in business, seeing a return away from totalitarian-bureaucratics towards enterpreneurial freedom (“actual” leadership contra übernacissistic CEOs).
The Thirties are back. With the income distribution being more skewed than ever (!) in history, so with more argument pro (…) Revolution … [Despite the latter having proven throughout history to fail or rather, in the end to not work out the way it was intended!] But also the Junker that babble alternative facts (US) and pretend to rule (Europe) but have no clue about their overly apparent airheadedness, leading duces to be able to grab power.
Noting that in some conglomerate of nominally independent states, the division or even separation between the Poor in the middle and the Elites on either coast, is more clear (worse) than in the Thirties now.
Pendulum swings everywhere. And throw in China and Russia, plus some India into the mix…
What have we learned from the past; can we deal with extremes in a better way now ..?
Customers, users, they aren’t the same
Yet another recent article in an otherwise wise mag tripped over the not even remotely subtle distinction between customers and users, when it comes to bragging rights of social media platforms.
User, users everywhere … But even by the billions they aren’t providing any subscription income… Because they’re just the product. Would mr Musk brag about how many Model S3X cars can run off his new factory’s assembly lines [errr…, yes he may], or would he be happier when there’s some out there that actually pay for the products? [that’s why he may]
At least, here we can still (sic) speak of actual products and clients. Where already clients and (‘all’) users are not the same thing. Buried in the above-linked article is passing reference to skew in ad revenue. Yes indeed. With the end kicker being the achievement of so-and-so-many billions of users again, to bury the fact that ad revenue points at what Facebook is all about: Lift, shift and retention of ad (selling) companies that are the actual users-customer-clients that bring in the dough.
So, wouldn’t it be better business reporting to stratify the users by ad generation ..? Wouldn’t it be better to point out all developments in revenues per ‘active’ user? Wouldn’t it be honest to report how little per user the ultimately advertising company makes in additional renevue by sales of (near-)physical products ..?
I’ll leave you with:
[The Salz’ worth going all the way up there, the ‘user’ down below made to feel on top of it…]
Tall(e)y facts
Yes, the Quote of the Day. Typically, one that had some ageing but has bettered, qua relevance, for it but may have better had some extra attention half a year ago: Since the masses are always eager to believe something, for their benefit nothing is so easy to arrange as facts.
By Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, you know, of 1754-1838 stock. Which may or may not remind you of some current or, at time of publication of this post, past [one can hope, can’t one?] Chief of the Bookkeeping — as the position was intended and crafted at time of creation… Oh how devolved it has become, true-ing all fears that De Tocqueville may have had about it but that’s for another post.
One need not go further than to remind you old Talley of the Périgord-that-produces-some-decent-wines-today, lived through the French revolution (read Thomas Paine for a alternative-facts (sic) report on that) and the Napoléontic period(s) [what a bleeder they were. sorry pun had to be made] — apparently he had mastered the survival game.
Good for him, maybe. And:
[Hidden gem, tucked away in the bustle of today’s action, deserves much more attention; National Museum of the American Indian NY]
No legalese please, we’re in business
Which translates to: A DPO better be an IT expert who has learnt [for clear thinking, UK English is preferred by far; ed.] the legalese of the GDPR, than a legal expert who has learnt some tidbits of IT. Despite the usual suspects exceptions, you do recognise the former and latter types in practice. And exceptions those are.
And debunking the myth that a legally schooled ‘GRC’ operative might pick up sufficient IT skills in a couple of courses or a bit of privacy practice, needn’t be necessary or you have done zero investigation re this. What a sorcerer’s apprentice of the pastiche kind do they portray. Because the mindset is inappropriate; the mindset of accidentally finding an interesting problem and for once not being dazed by those in the know, studying it extensively, how interesting this all, and then hardly anything. Certainly (sic) no actual solution to the problem…
The IT side, so often and so extensively underestimated in its intricacies throughout the vast wide scope of it in particular qua privacy concerns even in the GDPR itself that core document around which so many circle, on the other hand is qua background focused on (actively going out and) finding problems and then creating and implementing a solution.
And at the same time, recognising that the legal stuff is not as hard as it is sometimes portrayed (instigated) to be and does not require more than a trade diploma level of intellectual development, if even that.
One could easily remain on the subject but without much gain. We retire, having made sufficient argument why DPOs have no legal basis need in their functional requirement.
Oh, and:
[Feel free to pose and shine – with pretense of superiority through some legal jargon most probably devoid of meaning; NY]
Obviously for tomorrow: a rerun of Elk, Moose, Reindeer, Wapiti, Caribou, Deer
As an intermission: Would you know which is which, of the above/below …?
And then, there’s continental differences …
First up, the Elk:
Servus Canadensis, the wapiti indeed. Next up, the Elk:
know as such in Eurasia including those tinny pebbles off the coast called the British Isles. Looks suspiciously like the Alces Alces that is the Canadian (oh well, and US, yes, whiners) Moose, doesn’t it?
Because it is…! But you moose’ent confuse the two with each other nor with the reindeer a.k.a. caribou:
Rangifer Tarandus, since this one’s for Saami and Santa.
Are you feeling elky now ..? Or move to the Caribouan; you’ll never have problems with the above there … Oh deer we’re in seriousness-trouble here…
FOMO as FOYA gone bad
The enslavement to socmed seems to be a generation- … less thing: Unfortunately, all too many seem to need to be connected — mistakenly, just liking things will not lead to a true connection; how many are there that actually grow into such? Only on apps that are specifically aimed to that –swipe-left– otherwise, not so much. Or hardly. Most socmed like-affiliations are a. for sheeple attaching themselves to some brand(s), indicating their lack of self-esteem by submitting themselves as consumer-onlies, b. for lack of dare to actually do something for a Good Cause but wanting to be associated with Successful-in-life people [i.e., actual do-somethings] nevertheless. No c. to think of, qua ‘most’.
What remains, is a hard to miss impression of the truth, being that socmed attachments (mostly to the worst-on-ethics corp behemoths rather than anything) are panicked FOMO symptoms to the world, signalling a much deeper problematic psyche, being the Fear Of Youself As-is; FOYA.
That’s right. Individualism having gone so far as to drive all those that subconsciously cling to group belonging much more than is societally acceptable ( or so it seems!), i.e., the vast majority (of Like-serfs), to seek ways to still attach to something that can slurp up their feeling of insecurity (on their own) and return a pat on the back for group support.
You get it. Can ramble on, but have little time. And:
[An affiliation choice!; Amsterdam]