Ph.D in Biotechnology who has joined a eCommerce startup in Hong Kong.
There are data leaks and then there's the Panama Papers. 2.6 terabytes worth of data hiding billions
Why is This Important? The Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca, incorporates shell companies in tax havens such as the British Virgin Islands and charges wealthy clients in 42 countries for managing their wealth. An anonymous source leaked 11.5 million documents to the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, who shared them with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). (read more) The ICIJ created a 2.6 terabyte repository of Mossack Fonseca's detailed client information and gave access to news outlets, who broke the news. Panama Papers won the ICIJ the Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting. (read more)
How Massive is the Dataset? In 2010, Wikileaks released 1.7 gigabytes of US diplomatic cables online and in 2013 Edward Snowden shared large amounts of secret intelligence documents with journalists, revealing how taxpayers' money were used to defeat the privacy and security tools to spy on its own citizens and friendly nations. (see the papers) Compared to these leaks the Panama Papers could be the mother of all leaks. (read more)
Follow the Money Trail Some US$2bn leads all the way to Russian President Vladimir Putin: his cellist friend Sergei Roldugin owns 3 offshore shell companies, one of which invests US$12 million in a ski resort that Putin's younger daughter Katerina happened to have been married in. (read more)
Abstract: There is a long‐running debate as to whether privacy is a matter of control or access. This has become more important following revelations made by Edward Snowden in 2013 regarding the collection of vast swathes of data from the Internet by signals intelligence agencies such as NSA and GCHQ. The nature of this collection is such that if the control account is correct then there has been a significant invasion of people's privacy. If, though, the access account is correct then there has not been an invasion of privacy on the scale suggested by the control account.I argue that the control account of privacy is mistaken. However, the consequences of this are not that the seizing control of personal information is unproblematic. I argue that the control account, while mistaken, seems plausible for two reasons. The first is that a loss of control over my information entails harm to the rights and interests that privacy protects. The second is that a loss of control over my information increases the risk that my information will be accessed and that my privacy will be violated. Seizing control of another's information is therefore harmful, even though it may not entail a violation of privacy. Indeed, seizing control of another's information may be more harmful than actually violating their privacy.
Pub.: 19 May '16, Pinned: 13 Apr '17
Abstract: Authors: Philip Di Salvo Article URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19392397.2016.1165022?ai=1g8&mi=47tg1r&af=R Citation: Celebrity Studies Publication Date: 2016-03-24T06:00:08Z Journal: Celebrity Studies
Pub.: 24 Mar '16, Pinned: 13 Apr '17
Abstract: Authors: Kai Chen Article URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02684527.2016.1254142?ai=z4&mi=3fqos0&af=R Citation: Intelligence and National Security Publication Date: 2016-11-07T07:15:53Z Journal: Intelligence & National Security
Pub.: 07 Nov '16, Pinned: 13 Apr '17
Join Sparrho today to stay on top of science
Discover, organise and share research that matters to you