4 ms·

That really isn't accurate. The National Post is Canadian center-right, but it's generally a pro-business perspective rather than a socially conservative perspe

That really isn't accurate. The National Post is Canadian center-right, but it's generally a pro-business perspective rather than a socially conservative perspective, as it inherited much of its readership from the Financial Post. A better American analogue would be the Wall Street Journal. As for the GP comment, I think it's always fair to be more skeptical of government access to data given the government's unique powers and access to other sources of information for potential correlation or deanonymization. They should have to prove that this can't pose a privacy concern, not "move fast and break things".

Pxtl 5y ago
That was true maybe 10 years ago but the Post has been shockingly radicalized in recent years - now a home for climate change denial and other wingnuts. G&M is the new Post, Post is the new Sun, and Sun is the new Weekly World News.
netcan 5y ago
>> it's always fair to be more skeptical of government access to data given the government's... I'm not willing to take accept this as an absolute regardless of context. You could also make the case that government is accountable, given democracy, some level of transparency, oversight etc. There are quite a few private actors with the ability to correlate, deanonymize, etc. If a dataset is commercially available, it isn't private. Maybe it should not exist as a public dataset at all. If someone has to prove that a dataset does not pose a privacy risk, it should be whoever is selling it... or anyone who touches it. The idea that google, pfifer & citibank can access a dataset... without oversight or accountability, but a public health agency can't because privacy... it seems ridiculous to me.