The right to be left alone

The right to be left alone

The first thing to know when talking about privacy in India is that most of the population does not always understand what that means. Sometimes it is confused with shame. It is also confused with the emotion we feel when we do something that does not meet our standards or our sense of what is right.

The modern languages ​​of India seem to have an exact word that reflects a sense of privacy; There are usually some variations of words for isolation, privacy or confidentiality, again hinting at a conceptual confusion.

This explains the reactions of many who wonder what is important for privacy, because they have nothing to hide on the part of the government anyway.

Confidentiality, however, is not just something to hide or keep secret. It is essentially the right to be left alone. This does not mean that we withdraw from society. It is expected that the Company does not intervene in the decisions made by the person, as long as they do not harm others.

This means that the right to eat what we choose, the right to drink what we choose, the right to love and marry whom we choose to wear what we choose among others, are rights that the state can not interfere with.

In a society where adults are not necessarily exercising most of these choices on their own will (or by family, caste or social pressure), it is natural that the very notion of private life seems incomprehensible.

If you grew up in a society where everything you do is dictated by another person, and the cost of disobedience is high, you have the freedom to choose what you want in matters as important as fantasy.

But it is also a common mistake that not accommodated in India do not know or do not care about privacy. Millions of men and women reject daily oppression separated from their families and communities and fight for the freedom to make their own decisions.

They may not be the right word for him, but create a space for themselves to exercise the right to privacy. It is in this context that we must understand the Supreme Court hearings on the right to privacy.

Although the nine-judge jury was formed to decide whether there is a fundamental right to privacy protection protected by the Constitution in the specific context of the Aadhaar case, privacy has many more dimensions than simple protection or data monitoring by Of the state.

A fundamental right to privacy, enshrined and protected in the Constitution would mean that all persons have the right to be left alone by the State, unless such intrusion is necessary by a just, reasonable and equitable law.

It required the first court of nine judges in the first place, while several judgments had considered that there was a common right common to privacy (claimed that of other persons and entities), it was doubtful such a right could be claimed against the government.

Obviously, the Constitution does not use the word “privacy” or it will not hold hearings. Where, then, the right to privacy is a place in the Constitution?

When genetic testing throws up more questions than answers

When genetic testing throws up more questions than answers

AnneMarie Ciccarella, a 57-year-old brunette who speaks quickly with a hint of New York accent, thought she knew a lot of breast cancer. Her mother was diagnosed with the disease in 1987, and several other women have also developed the disease.

When doctors found a suspicious breast lump that turned out to be cancerous, it immediately sought mutation testing on the two BRCA genes, which represent about 20 percent of families with a strong history of breast cancer.

Ciccarella assumes that the results would be positive. They were not. Instead, we only identify a variant called unknown or uncertain meaning (SUV) in BRCA1 and BRCA2. Unlike pathogenic mutations that are known to cause disease or benign diseases are not, these genetic variations are simply not sufficiently understood whether they are involved or not.

“I thought I might have a mutated gene or not, and with all the cancer in my family, I thought I was going to bring a change. I did not know there was a big third category,” he said. “I have not had any information that it was a huge loss of blood by a big question mark.”

Thousands of people tested their BRCA genes for increased genetic susceptibility to the breast, ovary, prostate and others. About 5 percent said they were an SUV. This number is even higher for other genes: in one study, nearly 20 percent of genetic testing gave an SUV result.

Genetic variants that cause disease are rare, but that does not mean that all rare variants cause disease. Should we change the way we manage uncertainty in genetic testing?

“It’s a lot of uncertainty,” said Robert Klitzman, a bioethicist at Columbia University in New York. People want genetic testing like pregnancy tests, it says: “If you are pregnant or your place is not, they look more like a time report” and most people are not ready to deal with the odds and The uncertainties that result.

When scientists asked a group of women that a year after receiving the results of the BRCA test, women whose results were uncertain or non-informative felt much more stress and anxiety than those whose results were mild or pathogenic.

A follow-up study showed that the greater the risk a person thought their outcome indicated, and she was more tolerant, she was more likely to experience a serious distress in the long run.

Even before her sequencing results appear, Ciccarella decided to have a bilateral mastectomy based on her family history. For her, if she ever developed breast cancer has been answered, and in the worst possible way.

But she still wanted the information for her son and daughter so they could see if they had inherited a genetic risk of cancer. As a number of families, they learn that genetic sequencing will not provide answers at all.

We are all mutants. The three billion DNA fragments we do have always been considered as constant, granite monument chiseled as a classic, with only small changes made here and there. Scientists used to believe that DNA mutations were largely harmful.

Jawbone may be liquidating, but three of its ideas live on

Jawbone may be liquidating, but three of its ideas live on

Jawbone may be liquidating, but three of its ideas live on

The manufacturer of the portable jaw has initiated settlement procedures, according to the information technology website Thursday, citing a person close to the jaw. Founded in 1999, the jaw has been one of the first pioneers to carry Bluetooth, even before the term “wearable” is widespread.

Despite his death, it is now possible – the company declined to comment on several applications CNBC – Innovations jaw is alive and can extract future economic value.

Many of its products have integrated technologies to eliminate noise developed internally the military quality of the jaw.

The company’s patent portfolio may be worth 12 to 15 million and could be useful for tech giants like Google, Apple and Samsung, David Pratt, general manager of patent valuation company M-CAM International CNBC and CNBC partner In the IQ index of 100, wrote in an email to CNBC.

With a value of up to 3 billion, jaw has attracted big names as venture capitalists Sequoia Capital and Andreessen Horowitz; Her painting features Marissa Mayer.

And it left a lasting impact on consumer technology. Where the company really made a name for itself was in a portable and portable technology. Here are three appliances that has created the jaw, which for some time have been designed in an innovative way and overcome many other consumer technology companies.

A portable Bluetooth headset, the jaw wore a sleek design at a time when most headphones shivered business that could not hear or included a long expansion to receive better sound.

The jaw had a textured exterior designed by Yves Béhar and included a patented noise canceling technology. Jaw bone has become so closely associated with the company, then called Aliph, that they finally took their name from this and they become jaw bone.
The company helped launch the portable speaker market with the Jambox, a portable speaker that connects wirelessly to mobile phones and sound quality combined with a so-called noise canceling technology called their experience in Bluetooth headsets .

The unit worked entirely from an internal battery (an innovation at the time), connected via Bluetooth was designed to be small enough to pull into a bag and could even receive calls.

She distinguished herself in a sea of ​​bulky, heavy skirts with a unique design and different colors that “immediately spoke to the consumer,” said Bob Hoyler, research analyst at Euromonitor International.

“It certainly was not the first, but it’s the one that brought the product to the mass market.”

Quijada has followed an iteration in design, eventually launching the Big Jambox and Mini Jambox, but the market soon became saturated due to the established manufacturers have released their own vision on the portable speaker, including Bose and Beats by Dre , Now owned by Apple.

U.S. Energy Department helping power firms defend against cyber attacks

U.S. Energy Department helping power firms defend against cyber attacks

U.S. Energy Department helping power firms defend against cyber attacks

(Reuters) – The US Department of Energy said Friday that it helps companies defend themselves against a hacking campaign by public utilities, including at least one US nuclear power plant, Will have no impact on electricity or grid production.

The news of the attacks broke out there a week when Reuters reported that the Department of Homeland Security and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a warning June 28 industrial companies, pirated targeted sectors warning nuclear infrastructure, Electricity and critical infrastructure.

“DOE is working with our government partners and industry to mitigate any impact of a cyber intrusion affecting entities in the energy sector,” a representative of the Energy Ministry said in an e-mail to Reuters.

“At present, there has been no impact on US energy infrastructure control systems. Any potential impact seems to be limited to administrative and business networks.”

It was unclear who was responsible for the cuts. The joint DHS-FBI report did not identify the attackers, but described the courts as “persistent advanced threat,” a term commonly used by US officials, but not always to describe the perpetrators’ attacks.

DOE examined its response to the attacks after Bloomberg News reported Friday that the Kansas nuclear power plant Wolf Creek was one of at least a dozen US utilities raped in the attack, citing aged and ex-US officials who were not named.

A representative of Wolf Creek Nuclear Corp operative declined to say whether the factory was pirated, but said it continued to operate safely.

“There was no operational impact on Wolf Creek, which is because operating systems are completely separate from the corporate network,” company spokeswoman Jenny Hageman said by email.

A separate national security newsletter, released on June 28, includes information on the code used in a hacking tool that suggests hackers have attempted to use the password of a Wolf Creek employee accessing the network.

Hageman declined to say whether the hackers had access to the employee’s account. The employee could not be reached for comment.

The June 28 alert, he said, observed pirates using contaminated emails to collect their network access credentials from their targets.

“Historically, cybernetic players strategically targeted the energy sector with different cyber espionage targets disrupting energy systems in the event of a hostile conflict,” the report said.

David Lochbaum, an expert non-profit group of the Union of Nuclear Scientists, said the reactors have some immunity against cyber attacks because their operating systems are separate digital business networks. But over time, it would not be impossible for hackers to potentially harm.

“Perhaps the increased vulnerability of nuclear power plants to hackers could get their information on plant designs and work schedules with which to carry out a physical attack,” Lochbaum said.

The Department of Energy said it had no shared information on this incident with the industry, including the technical aspects of the attack and mitigation suggestions.

“Government security and industry professionals work closely together to share information so that operators of power systems to defend their systems,” said the agency’s representative.

Touting coal, Perry confuses supply and demand

Touting coal, Perry confuses supply and demand

Touting coal, Perry confuses supply and demand

(CNN), energy secretary Rick Perry has confused the relationship between the fundamental forces of the economy while extolling the coal industry’s adoption of the Trump administration, according to economists.

“Here’s a little lesson in economics: the supply and demand for supplies gets put out there and demand will continue.” Standard & Poor’s Taylor Kuykendall said Thursday.

The former governor of Texas made the remark by talking to employees at a coal-fired power plant in Maidsville, West Virginia. A message left by CNN with Perry Friday’s office was not returned.

But economists have pushed Perry’s statement Friday.
“It’s an old statement called Say’s Law and what’s wrong.

It’s that simple, “said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank. The offer does not automatically create its own demand. ”

“There are two separate entities that have their own determinants and interact to provide prices,” he added.

The late French economist Jean-Baptiste Say argued that supply beyond demand was never carried out because demand always corresponds to supply. But Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said it was a basic misunderstanding of the economy.

“Maybe not everyone does the economy. And I know from the fact that everyone does not happen,” he said.

Adele Morris, director of policies for climate and energy economics at the Brookings Institution, said Perry’s words “really do not have any meaning.”
“What it seems to suggest is that if providers provided more, people would ask for more,” he said. “Well, suppliers do not control the application, they control the supply.”

There is no debate among economists about the law of supply and demand, said Morris, a former economist at the Joint Economic Committee of Congress.

“There is a debate about the disconnection of what the government says to coal workers and their communities and truths in the markets, in order to weave a story and tell people in the coal-dependent areas that have the Power to revive the coal industry, “he said.

President Donald Trump and his administration have regularly announced employment growth in coal, although experts say otherwise.

A study by Columbia University estimates that the coal industry lost about 60,000 jobs since the end of 2011 and hundreds of thousands of people since the 1920s because of a larger share of the world’s energy production from other sources Cleaner as solar gas and natural gas.

Democrat Ted Lieu hit Perry in his comments on Twitter.
“Dear Rick Perry: If you put a lot of 35mm film there, this will require you to continue NO This is not like capitalism stop lying to coal workers ..” Said the California lawmaker.