Wow. Matlab from 2005 to 2013. Never knew it'd be in the top 10. Lovely programming language, easy to compile and loves big data sets.

I find the argument that a good apple shouldn't even be in the policing business (i.e. guilt by association) problematic. My argument would be: If I'm a good apple, I'd be all for reforming and fumigating out all the bad apples! Bad apples don't deserve to tarnish my good reputation nor my silence (i.e. as good as complicity), ESPECIALLY since there are -- ahem -- "only 0.01%" of them in the force! Isn't that the logical and moral sentiment?

My concern about focusing the debate on the ratio of "Good apples vs. bad apples" is that it's fraught with pitfalls. Without "big data" (because the System won't ever allows such transparency), that "ratio" is subjective. It's just an excuse for politicians and legislators to wiggle out doing anything.

The argument should be that a fair, just and functioning society should punish each and every bad apples to protect the good apples and its citizens. We shouldn't tolerate any bad apples, no matter the "ratio"... police depts & judges SHOULD be exemplary in their knowledge and adherent to the law, NOT the other way around. How else should a people trust its government?

Besides, if what they say is true -- that the "bad apples are few and far between" -- there shouldn't be much consequence to prosecute them all right? It must be worth reforming to salvage the far-to-damaged reputation right? It would be a moral booster for BOTH the police & community IMO.

Your video, BIG DATA - L1ZY, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

"Only 3% of people who use google have actually read the terms and conditions that they agreed to. "

3%?? I would have been amazed if it was as high as 0.3%.
3% would be (conservatively) over 10 million people. I doubt it's anywhere close to that.

I am not sure that privacy as a concept is even possible in a world with machine learning algorithms and big data. That's not a value judgment; I don't think privacy is worthless, I just find it increasingly untenable.

Machine learning has gotten so good, that even if you anonymise data, it's now pretty easy to tell a lot about you. Your digital fingerprint is there and an AI will be 99% correct about your age, gender, politics, sexual orientation, etc, even without you giving up that data.

Larry mentioned Palantir as a company that could provide technology to protect our privacy. Yet Palantir was involved in the campaign to take down WikiLeaks, so he might as well have named Gamma Group, the creators of FinFisher, your friendly Dictator's trojan of choice.

Scum, the lot of 'em.

Here's my suggestion on how to prevent abuse of (big) data: don't collect the fucking data; don't merge databases; don't store anything longer than absolutely neccessary. But demanding that sort of restraint strikes me as just as pointless as telling a 16 year old to stop wanking...