Data, Mind setting and Intent

It has always been the case that dat allows for more, Cambridge Analytica might have brought it to the surface, but it was there, it always was. I have been involved with data since 1992, so I see no surprises here. Even as some are ‘befuddled’ or ‘baffled’, I, and many others were not. So when I see the BBC article (at https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-54915779), I merely shrug my shoulders and go ‘Meh’. Yet the larger part is not seen, it is partially hidden by “buying someone’s name can lead to making guesses about their income, number of children and ethnicity – which is then used to tailor a political message for them”, when I see ‘making guesses about their income’, I wonder who was setting that strange event. When I have a name, I do not need to do any of that, When we combine the election roll data, when we set the stage via social media and when we add real estate data that some have (Equifax, Transunion, Thomson Reuters, Experian, Dunn and Bradstreet), we can start to combine information. I have don this for well over a decade. So when I see the statement from Lucy Purdon, I merely wonder if she is intentionally stupid. You see, it is not about “Data collection is out of control and we need to put limits on what is collected”, it is about “Data collection is out of control and we need to put limits on what is connected”, the shift is two letters which is a huge stage. I have been combining real estate data, past connections, as well as location information. There are really good programs out there and in some cases, I can combine the details of close to a dozen sources, as long as I can create a unique key and that is often possible (not always), privacy is what you had before there was an internet. When we got to the combinations of Merchant house data (Dutch: Kamer van Koophandel), I had the givings of well over a million people, a million more if multiple connections were made and that was in 1994, that was well over 25 years ago and that world did not stop, it never stopped running. Over 10 years ago Oracle introduced array tables, the manual states “Unbounded means that, theoretically, there is no limit to the number of elements in the collection. Actually, there are limits, but they are very high—for details, see Referencing Collection Elements”, it was a game changer, as I saw it it was the first real instance where we could create many to many relationships as well as set that data to a single person. In IBM Statistics I had to be clever and make a workaround, which was per person and a little time consuming, Oracle gave the setting where the computer did all the work, the more powerful the computer. The more data and the quicker we saw results, this was over 10 years ago, and a person like Lucy Purdon should know this, making her either super stupid, or she has an agenda. I do not think that she is stupid, so I am going to make the agenda assumption. There is a stage on what is collected and what is connected, she should know this. Financial institutions are ahed of that curve, because it gives them additional mitigated risk, this is one reason why Google Financial institutions need to keep a Chinese wall on their data away from their Financial Institutions, I gave that view somewhere two weeks ago in ‘A fair call’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2020/11/09/a-fair-call/), so when we see the events all clinging together, what are we chastising Google for when the stage is a lot worse? And when the BBC gives us ‘So how do the parties get my data in the first place?’ With the added “The electoral register forms “the spine” of data sources, according to PI, but beyond that it is surprisingly difficult to work out what the parties use”, well, I think I have just given you the run down on the way I did it for aver a quarter of a century, as such the gap the BBC is claiming to have versus is weird, especially when they do not give us “We think that they get from A, through B,C ,D and E, through to the result, we merely cannot prove it at present”, but they didn’t give us that, did they?

Several players have the data, and they have the mindset to make the connections in their need to set an advantage, but the stage of the intent cannot be proven, it remain allegedly, and in light of optional data (if others can acquire that data). It was never about collections, it was about connections and enough players know this to set some serious question marks to this article.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Politics, Science

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.