The perils of big data [LWN.net]

The perils of big data

Posted Sep 6, 2012 9:53 UTC (Thu) by massimiliano (subscriber, #3048)
In reply to: The perils of big data by ortalo
Parent article: The perils of big data

Reality is rarely black or white, mostly nuances of gray.

This is true, but...

Most of the time this is used to demonstrate evidence of cheating (prior to the separation) *in front of the judge* just to lower the other party credibility and gain more money.

...there are cases where the true color of things should be assessed :-)

Specifically: when you are in front of a judge you should either say the truth, or have your lawyer claim that the issue is irrelevant and say nothing.

In this specific case, if it is relevant that you were in place X you should be true about it.

Or if it is irrelevant that you were in place X, and the other party is just trying to show that you are a liar, well: is it relevant that you are a liar? Would your soon-ex-spouse be legally entitled to more money because you, as a liar, made his-her life more painful?

Once again, if it is irrelevant just have your lawyer state it. But if it is relevant, in my book you are required to openly state "yes, I have been a liar to my spouse" and not childishly complain that there are facts that can prove it :-)

And BTW, your personal comment is priceless, it definitely made me smile (in a positive way!) :-D As a side-footnote, you could even not imagine it but "know it indirectly" because you see other people cheating, maybe your coworkers, and you see the mess it involves. So your Mary can still trust you even if you don't have to "imagine" :-)

Ok, enough LWN-offtopic for today!

(Log in to post comments)

The perils of big data

Posted Sep 6, 2012 13:10 UTC (Thu) by ortalo (subscriber, #4654) [Link]

That's not so off-topic.

First: Today, even LWN's comments are "worldwide publications" so... well... And that's the problem raised by the good old central database and the Internet as it is today. No way to have something like a random conversation somewhere that fully fades away in a short time (or other minor things that do not deserve posterity at all). That's something new with respect to privacy. Well, not so new now that it's 20-years old; but honestly I still find it difficult to adapt to the new scheme.

Second: Your reasoning is an interesting example of the potential impact of information inference, frequently forgotten.
From what I state, you can also deduce further things; and you also have to reason about the truth of what I say. And me, I would have to take into account when I write what every reader can deduce (no offense, but well... especially for Mary ;-).
And in this case, you did not even include information from multiple sources for your deductions (employer and job position for example).

What seems to me is that, confronted with these new issues in a connected world, there is nearly no way to fight against this privacy invasion; except by using the same tools to build more trust as a compensation.
For example: I'd like my computer to tell me more about readers of this comment that also look at my profile on a profesional social network, or that look at my physical address, etc. I don't think I would invade their privacy more than they would mine, I would be protecting myself as well as establishing a better trust network *with* them.

Very soon, we will rejoin: identifying liars is key to the topic.
Not only in front of a judge (though in this case, it is also legally reprehensible). Like investigators, one usually need evidence to spot liars and make a difference between random guys and... trustable husbands. ;-)