Adventure Ausrama Blog

Algorithms make determinations based on concepts favored by programmers. They are not aware that they are doing it. This intelligence is truly artificial. k intelligence l artificial Algorithms may seem to be good because they are the basis for AI. Anything that helps us must alright. This is a big mistake. Making choices is their main function and biases are set by their human creators. Decisions can benefit some while hurting others.   ⎳ a decision a artificial a intelligence a algorithms a biased a making biased ⎳ Something that makes a critical choice must by definition be biased. Coders have to define the factors leading to a decision. Bias is clearly defined in mathematics as errors. Over or under representing populations in a sample is faulty.    ⦿3 b decision b artificial b intelligence b algorithms b biased b making ⦿3 Allocative harm involves discarding relevant resources in the evaluation process. Giving advice to a specialized target can end up with the su

Australians tend to be early adopters of new technology because they have inquisitive minds. Our old enemy, the shark, will always be around, so it is not surprising that drone technology is being used to solve this problem. It is not the buzzing sound that will scare sharks off. Drones are being used to gather visual information about where sharks are and the number swimming around, the theory being that if we know this we can be more careful. At the moment hooks are baited on lines attached to floating drums. This method is a simple way to catch sharks. Unfortunately, sharks not tempted by the bait remain in the area. Baited hooks have warning devices in them that notify watchers on a boat when sharks take them. This is a clumsy way to keep sharks at bay. Targeting sharks observed by drones is a better solution. Drones are far cheaper than helicopters and do a better job, going right down to sea level to collect data. ◆   Technology by Ty Buchanan   ◆ Adventure Australia F

On Tuesday 13th of October the Australian communications surveillance system comes into effect. Apparently, privacy will end for all Australians. Contrary to this view, I believe Australians are smart enough to opt out. There is no way the Australian government can stop the use of  VPNs, nor the resetting of a modem to Google's 8080. The government does not have jurisdiction over Google, i.e., it cannot ban it! This data, though extremely large, will always be incomplete and a waste of money. Anybody who intends to do something "underhanded" will obviously avoid the system. . Furthermore, what about Australians who have their websites on servers in other countries? This information is outside of the local loop. You can also create a site on oversees servers.  Some users will choose to do nothing and allow their information to be collected, however. Abuse of power will happen from the start. Uncontrolled bodies like the Australian Federal Police as with

Bank staff are to be allowed to monitor the bank accounts of the elderly to see if relatives, friends and carers are stealing money. At first glance this may well seems to be a good thing. However, banks staff swear to keep all bank information private. Instant dismissal is the penalty for telling others about a customer's financial status. The thought of bank staff having the authority to pass on private information to government is frightening and will, no doubt, be challenged in court. Of course people with dementia will have someone managing their bank account. Reporting a carer just because a customer is permanently incapacitated is stupid. You don't need special training to see someone has decreased capacity to manage their own affairs. Smart Sparrow's who are developing the app to do this are wasting their time. Society will not accept bank tellers snooping into their affairs. It will not be allowed. Tremendous damage will be done to families on me

The NSA has said that it targeted non-US citizens in its information grab from large Internet companies. Australian and American government agencies have secured detailed data about Australian citizens. This fact came out in a new report. In the first half of 2013 546 requests were made on Australians. Facebook provided details on 349 of these. The US demanded information on 20,000 users assumed to be Americans. Access was granted on nearly 16,000 US accounts. Which government agencies made the demands was not announced by Facebook. Internet companies seem to have been given some sort of filtering power to decide what is released. This is strange considering such companies are not elected non-government agencies. Are they entitled to be above the law? Requests to Twitter by Australia have risen 600 percent since the second half of 2012. All members of the international data oligopoly were approached. About two thirds of all requests were successful. There is a fine balanc

Despite calls by some countries for Internet companies to had over information on citizens' searches and email, the knowledge superhighway is moving in the other direction. Information stored in the cloud are out of reach of national police forces. Gone are the days when just about everything that a suspect has done is available recorded somewhere at sometime. Data is there but it cannot be accessed. The ordinary person will not have much sympathy for police trying to "background" a suspect. They see authorities as being too intrusive anyway. For years Australian social security sent out "demand" forms for aged pensioners to provide up-to-date information about what they had in the bank. A court found that social security did not have the legal right to demand honest answers. The forms are still being sent out. Legally they are still suspect. Such is the quagmire authorities are in. Anyway, back to the case in hand. Police are saying even getting data