IP6 isn't all bad
Remember... if BT had been in charge, we would have IP6 addresses looking like 192.168.0.0.1
10 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Apr 2019
I'm surprised that you have written this in the context of the current industrial relations disgruntlement. Here in the UK we are facing a massive wave of strikes - rail, nurses, teachers, mail, etc. and these are all organised by unions. Unions are clearly not illegal, clearly still have teeth, and are clearly not shy or wrecking businesses to get their way.
I agree with your first para, but you went off the rails in the second. Racial familiarity (perhaps 'cultural comfort') is part of what diversity actually is, but if I were to suggest that diversity brings negative impacts as well as positive ones I would get kebabbed here quicker than the subject of the article.
At face value, the path taken out of racism is something to be lauded, not punished. All Google has done here is to discourage people from talking about their reform and enlightening others. What next? Google attending self-help groups to identify and punish reformed addicts, reformed criminals, etc.
The problem is that what is considered relaxed banter amongst African-Americans, is considered racist when used by white people. The flaw isn't in the algorithm, it is in society. For example, there are a dozen informal but inoffensive ways to refer to a British person (Brit, Tommy, limey, Pom, etc), and any white or black person is welcome to use these. Give one example of an informal but INOFFENSIVE way to refer to an African, Indian or Pakistani. There are a few when used by a black person, but a white speaker is reduced to using the strictly formal, or grossly offensive. Fixing that differentiation is the issue, not trying to filter according to the race of the speaker.
We have seen breach after breach of privacy by phone companies, councils, and other organisations. The ICO gets richer, and the victims get nothing.
In this particular case, I can live with it. A gang member doesn't deserve anything even if his privacy has been breached, but in almost every other case the victims deserve compensation yet receive none at all.
If data is negligently shared then each victim should receive £20 as a MINIMUM as an apology. It's not much, but it will encourage companies to not keep too much data in the same place, don't you think?