THREAD: Senate committee on public services holds hearing on cashless modes along tollways https://t.co/sDo55hwVGt
Tweets by our digital producers @YsabelwithaWhyy and Bamba Galang
Earlier, he suspended NLEX Corp.'s business permit over traffic problems caused by its cashless toll-collecting system. He has since lifted the suspension after coming to an agreement with NLEX. https://t.co/kV3adglfgK
Sen. Nany Binay: Pero may room po for them to comply? Nakasulat rin po sa letter ng NEDA na bigyan sila ng pagkakataon to comply? (1/2)
The tandem is also behind the Mactan-Cebu International Airport and the Clark International Airport.
More from For later read
1. A little DRASTIC Project you may be able to help with?
We want to collate all references to DRASTIC in academic papers & media articles
Here are a few:
medium article by @emmecola
thorough report by @netpoette
@ColinDavdButler 's Paper
Please add any links to this thread. Tks!
2. More References
Papers by @MonaRahalkar and @BahulikarRahul
Papers by @Rossana38510044 and @ydeigin
Medium articles & papers by
@gdemaneuf & @Rdemaistre
Papers by @flavinkins (Daoyu Zhang)
Papers by "Anon" & "interneperson"
French News - le Monde
Can anyone remember any more?
3. More References
Papers & Blog Posts by @Harvard2H (Sirotkin & Sirotkin)
260 Questions for WHO collated by @billybostickson
If you find mentions of our individual names or "DRASTIC" in Papers or News, please forward here to this thread as links or screenshots.
Histoire du COVID-19 – chapitre 6 - Partie 2 : Pourquoi le séquençage complet du virus RaTG13 n'a pas été communiqué par Shi Zheng Li avant février 2020 ? https://t.co/MYEZZSAzaE
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
BY ANNETTE GARTLAND ON OCTOBER 12, 2020
https://t.co/sPs1y8Herg
We want to collate all references to DRASTIC in academic papers & media articles
Here are a few:
medium article by @emmecola
thorough report by @netpoette
@ColinDavdButler 's Paper
Please add any links to this thread. Tks!
2. More References
Papers by @MonaRahalkar and @BahulikarRahul
Papers by @Rossana38510044 and @ydeigin
Medium articles & papers by
@gdemaneuf & @Rdemaistre
Papers by @flavinkins (Daoyu Zhang)
Papers by "Anon" & "interneperson"
French News - le Monde
Can anyone remember any more?
3. More References
Papers & Blog Posts by @Harvard2H (Sirotkin & Sirotkin)
260 Questions for WHO collated by @billybostickson
If you find mentions of our individual names or "DRASTIC" in Papers or News, please forward here to this thread as links or screenshots.
Histoire du COVID-19 – chapitre 6 - Partie 2 : Pourquoi le séquençage complet du virus RaTG13 n'a pas été communiqué par Shi Zheng Li avant février 2020 ? https://t.co/MYEZZSAzaE
SARS-CoV-2: lab-origin hypothesis gains traction
BY ANNETTE GARTLAND ON OCTOBER 12, 2020
https://t.co/sPs1y8Herg
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
That targeted ads allow for "free" products for consumers is a common talking point and we're going to see more of it in the coming months.: https://t.co/Xty3My3f0u (1/14)
— Kevin Coates (@KevinCoates) February 16, 2021
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Great post by @Sherman1890 got me thinking about the future of targeted ads.
— Dirk Auer (@AuerDirk) February 12, 2021
More and more tools (privacy labels, ad blockers, GDPR) enable consumers to opt-out from targeted ads - can limit the data platforms receive or block ads altogether.
The end of targeted ads? \U0001f9f5\U0001f447 https://t.co/MA6A3BrUWq
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
You May Also Like
1/x Fort Detrick History
Mr. Patrick, one of the chief scientists at the Army Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., held five classified US patents for the process of weaponizing anthrax.
2/x
Under Mr. Patrick’s direction, scientists at Fort Detrick developed a tularemia agent that, if disseminated by airplane, could cause casualties & sickness over 1000s mi². In a 10,000 mi² range, it had 90% casualty rate & 50% fatality rate
3/x His team explored Q fever, plague, & Venezuelan equine encephalitis, testing more than 20 anthrax strains to discern most lethal variety. Fort Detrick scientists used aerosol spray systems inside fountain pens, walking sticks, light bulbs, & even in 1953 Mercury exhaust pipes
4/x After retiring in 1986, Mr. Patrick remained one of the world’s foremost specialists on biological warfare & was a consultant to the CIA, FBI, & US military. He debriefed Soviet defector Ken Alibek, the deputy chief of the Soviet biowarfare program
https://t.co/sHqSaTSqtB
5/x Back in Time
In 1949 the Army created a small team of chemists at "Camp Detrick" called Special Operations Division. Its assignment was to find military uses for toxic bacteria. The coercive use of toxins was a new field, which fascinated Allen Dulles, later head of the CIA
Mr. Patrick, one of the chief scientists at the Army Biological Warfare Laboratories at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., held five classified US patents for the process of weaponizing anthrax.
2/x
Under Mr. Patrick’s direction, scientists at Fort Detrick developed a tularemia agent that, if disseminated by airplane, could cause casualties & sickness over 1000s mi². In a 10,000 mi² range, it had 90% casualty rate & 50% fatality rate
3/x His team explored Q fever, plague, & Venezuelan equine encephalitis, testing more than 20 anthrax strains to discern most lethal variety. Fort Detrick scientists used aerosol spray systems inside fountain pens, walking sticks, light bulbs, & even in 1953 Mercury exhaust pipes
4/x After retiring in 1986, Mr. Patrick remained one of the world’s foremost specialists on biological warfare & was a consultant to the CIA, FBI, & US military. He debriefed Soviet defector Ken Alibek, the deputy chief of the Soviet biowarfare program
https://t.co/sHqSaTSqtB
5/x Back in Time
In 1949 the Army created a small team of chemists at "Camp Detrick" called Special Operations Division. Its assignment was to find military uses for toxic bacteria. The coercive use of toxins was a new field, which fascinated Allen Dulles, later head of the CIA
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.