Skip to main content

Nott Tuesday 09-02-2010

I went to the Nott Tuesday event last night. There were some interesting points raised about who owns data about you and how it is used. It's a difficult subject for me because I find it a little tiring. In fact I find it very hard to write about, so I will make it brief.




The presentation was about the "man" coming down on you and taking all the data they record about you and using it for purposes that you may not want / agree to. Ah ok, I don't like the sound of that. Mmm ok so there is a problem there but surely the best way to sort it is to just firm up the Data Protection act and legislate in favour of the people whose digital information is stored. In addition to this, if you are collecting certain data they could insist that you sign up with a register (list of companies) that do collect data, or it could be a voluntary thing but people would lean towards sites and services that are members of DatSecure (my new name for it). Once we had this then these companies could be audited. Obviously the web can be border-less so there would need to be a little bit more thought put into it then that. I'm an ideas man not a details man so best to leave the legal discussions and details to others (some sort of slithering administrator creature with no technical / artistic skills).

He did make some good points though about collective movement. That was really interesting. I think they already use some technology like this in large shopping centres where they track mobile phone movements (they don't record all the details they say). However people were not overly keen on this. But if there were assurances such as audits on the data collection then that could possibly give people the confidence to accept it. The idea would be that if a group of people were moving down the street in one collection, clever software would know that about that time and on that street the number 36 bus was supposed to be there. This would be achieved by collecting live information on how the bus was progressing from individuals phones on the bus.


Like I said, it was interesting.. I don't think it is the best idea though. I would just prefer to see trackers on the bus enforced by legislation so they had to do it. If I was using the buses every day I would even probably pay a small fee for the live information.


Ultimately the argument is purely academic because as we all know, Robots will inherit the Earth about the year 2020 anyway.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Creating star ratings in HTML and Javascript

I'd searched around a little for some shortcuts to help in doing this but I couldn't find anything satisfactory that included the ability to pull the rating off again for saving. I'd ended up coming up with this rather cheeky solution. Hopefully it helps you too! This is my first post in a while (I stopped blogging properly about 8 years ago!) It's strange coming back to it. Blogger feels very crusty and old by todays standards too.
Post a Comment
Read more

Make your objects immutable by default

More about the Good Dojo In my post last week , I discussed creating objects that are instantiated safely. Please go back and read if you are interested. At the end of the post, I mentioned that I'd also written the class so it was immutable when instantiated. This is important!!! I feel like a broken record in repeating this but I am sure at the time of writing your code, you aren't modifying your object all over the place and so are safe in the belief that protecting against mutability is overkill. Please remember though, your code could be around for a hell of a long time. You aren't writing your code for now... you are writing for the next fool that comes along (including you) . Nothing is more upsetting that coming back to fix a bug on some wonderfully crafted code to say "Who has butchered my code?!", but often you were involved at the start of the process. You made the code easy to modify, allowing objects to be used / reused / modified without thi
Post a Comment
Read more

An instantiated object should be "ok"

I've been QA'ing quite a bit of work recently and one common theme I've noticed across both Java and C# projects I have been looking at is that we occasionally open ourselves up unessacarily to Exceptions by the way objects are being created. My general rule of thumb (which I have seen mentioned in a Pluralsight video recently but also always re-iterate in various Robust Software talks I have done) is that you shouldn't be able to create an object and then call a method or access a property that then throws an exception. At worst, it should return null (I'm not going to moan about that now). I've created an example below. We have two Dojos, one is good and one is bad. The bad dojo looks very familiar though. It's a little class written in the style that seems often encouraged. In fact, many classes start life as something like this. Then as years go on, you and other colleagues add more features to the class and it's instantiation becomes a second
Post a Comment
Read more