Stephen Baker of Newsweek, starts this week’s essay with the following line:
About three minutes into his speech on Jan. 20, President Barack Obama spoke a word never before uttered in a Presidential inauguration speech: “data.”.
The Obama campaign managed data like no other campaign before. One would expect, and hope, that data, and the interpretation thereof, will have a prominent place in policy debates.
Which brings me to my point – data is essential to building an information stream. Without data, you have no information from which to make valid choices. No data – no information — and you have either market failure, public failure or both.
How many bills do you think become law – federal, state and local, without data. How many bills become law without sufficient data? And how many bills become law without necessary data?
Chasing the link to The Numerati (Baker’s book), led me to ThinkingAnalytically – where I found a mindmap of the book. Remember to check out mindmeister for more info.
As you read the Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) (Draft, it looks more like the same ole’ policy : categorize, classify, protect the most important and pray for the rest!
PII should be graded by “PII confidentiality impact level,” the degree of potential harm that could result from the PII if it is inappropriately revealed. For example, an organization might require appropriate training for all individuals who are granted access to PII, with special emphasis on moderate- and high-impact PII, and might restrict access to high-impact PII from mobile devices, such as laptops and cellphones, which are generally at greater risk of compromise than non-portable devices, such as desktop computers at the organization’s headquarters.
Would be interesting to know how much these standards will cost to implement.
From NIST announcement
Post reports Berkman study challenging assertions that the internet makes children more likely to be abused than real life circumstances:
“The risks minors face online are complex and multifaceted and are in most cases not significantly different than those they face offline.”
There are opposing views from law enforcement and other advocacy groups:
Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, a District-based consumer advocacy group, has been critical of the report because its expenses were underwritten by interested parties such as MySpace, Google and Microsoft. “Surprise, surprise,” he said. “They pay for a study, and it says there’s no problem. It was kind of a brilliant PR move.”
However, note that Chester doesn’t provide data to oppose the report, he attackes the source of funding for the report. The lack of data is actually a concern, for both sides of the argument do not have enough data from which legislators and policy makers can make competent choices:
One online safety advocate, named as a member of the report’s task force, said she is embarrassed by the report because it highlights the fact that there isn’t enough good data on the subject and it doesn’t give lawmakers a clear to-do list. Parents’ concerns about Internet predators are sometimes overblown, said Parry Aftab of WiredSafety.org, but it’s nearly impossible to tell how overblown they are; when quizzed about online activity, kids don’t usually tell the truth if their parents are around, she said.
Market failure occurs, among other reasons, for lack of sufficent information for the market to behave efficient and effectively. Public failure occurs for the same reason.