Donald Trump’s first big test will be his choices for the cabinet posts.
After he offended Mexicans, the British, Muslims, the Chinese, Koreans, Europeans, and the Japanese, the person that he chooses as America’s top diplomat will need to be an accomplished professional, capable of repairing the almost irreparable damage.
That choice will tell the world whether the shock of the election justifies their concern.
Donald Trump Announces Presidential Bid By Trashing Mexico, Mexicans
Donald Trump calls profiling Muslims ‘common sense’
Donald Trump Mocks Asians With Broken-English Accent During Campaign Rally In Iowa
Donald Trump on North Korea going to war: ‘Good luck, enjoy yourself folks’
Donald Trump’s Asia Policy Would be a Disaster
Japan and South Korea hit back at Trump’s nuclear comments
Trump rips U.S. defense of Japan as one-sided, too expensive
U.K. Parliament debate: Donald Trump gets pummeled by the British
Why should America defend Europeans who won’t defend themselves?
The arguments about data’s invasion of privacy is a concept that difficult for a database person to understand.
Credit bureaux work with data so that they can differentiate those people who are a poor credit risk from those who are not. The 1998 British Data Protection Act makes holding some of that data illegal. So it’s difficult to differentiate between the good and the bad and creditworthiness is assessed at the highest risk level for everyone. Individuals are obliged to prove that they are less of a credit risk, and those who can’t don’t get credit. Or when there’s too much money around, everyone gets credit, and then there’s eventually a lot of bad debt, and we have a financial crisis.
This thinking is now being extended to protecting the data that can be gleaned from cell phone companies. From the tower records it is possible to determine peoples’ movements. That seems to be cause for concern.
Tracking a persons movements, particularly in Britain with it’s ubiquitous CCTV cameras, has been possible before now. The idea that it’s become easier seems to have raised levels of concern. The cry is that additional legislation must be enacted to protect peoples’ privacy. What that invasion might be is not entirely clear.
Having used data as proof in criminal investigations makes the outcry even more difficult to understand. The ability to determine that the perpetrator called an accessory at the time that the crime was committed is valuable evidence. This is not about what was said; it’s just who and when.
With this kind of data it was possible to prove that a cashier in Guyana and his co-conspirator had defrauded the Guyanese people out of Gy$300 million.
The magistrate ruled that use of the data was inadmissible (incorrectly as it happened), and the criminals were allowed to go free.
That’s what we need – laws making it possible for clever defense lawyers to get criminals off the hook.
If people are so worried about being tracked they can just switch the phone off. No legislation required.
Out of shape
Will the government’s web ‘snoop’ plans work?