More must be done to tackle online crime, and Facebook should cooperate. But expectations of pre-emptive screening of social media content to detect threats are fantasy. Suggestions of wide-scale, pre-emptive internet surveillance probably aren't nefarious, 'Orwellian' attempts to watch our every move; but they do misunderstand what's really possible when dealing with the internet.
Today we have come to a fork in the road in our journey towards perfect internet connections. Speed, once our facilitator, our enabler, our 'Make It Happen' man, does not help us as it once did. As a tech nut, I plumped for a 40Mbps broadband package for my home. But the truth is, my wife, two children and I could not use it all even if we simultaneously binged on high spec online content.
The storm over Uber's consumer privacy settings is just the latest in a growing list of concerns about the tech industry's handling of our data. From general irritation about targeted ads; to deep unease about our personal data security, to fears over the erosion of civil liberties - there is concern about who has access to data about us and what they are doing with it.
I wanted to do a religious game that showed religion in itself could be benevolent, it's just the application and interpretation that's problematic. Yet this gets stale quickly. The usual dividing lines in this argument run similar to those of gun control in the US: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Therefore, religion doesn't kill people, people with religion kill people. Drunk drivers don't kill people, drunk drivers who hit people and kill people, kill people... It's a facile argument that gets meaningless very quickly. The thing is, if religion really is so intoxicatingly corruptible, then it doesn't matter how great it is on paper, it's never going to have a happy ending.
Eighty years is within a single lifetime of today - but for many it will feel a long time ago. The pace and scale of change in science and technology, international relations, arts and culture - and the way societies work and people live - must seem vast through the eyes of a those who have lived through them.
Too many businesses, however, are still stuck in the past, stranded with out-of-date kit impairing their ability to compete effectively in the modern, digital economy. It's understandable why it's hard to let go - legacy infrastructure can be reliable, staff are familiar with systems and the costs are often locked in and budgeted for, or already paid off.
It begins with the skip tracer collecting as much information as possible about the 'subject' who has to be traced down to his/her current inhabitation. The information that has been made available with the government agencies and family members is analyzed, reduced and then verified for its credibility.
The media in general and online editors in particular are not necessarily the bad guys here, far from it, they mostly just stick to their journalistic ethos... A possible solution could be that, after a set number of years, the article would either de-index itself or anonymise the individuals it cites. Some kind of "digital rehabilitation act" if you will, or a self-triggered right to be forgotten.