This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/dec/11/observer-letters-data-not-new-oil-technology
The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Letters: data is not the new oil, it is worthless without investment Letters: data is not the new oil, it is worthless without investment | |
| (about 5 hours later) | |
| Given the current anti-expert feeling, I’m reluctant to criticise a movement that would make better social use of data, but Evgeny Morozov’s call for data populism (“Data populists must seize our information for the benefit of us all”, In Focus, last week) fails on a number of points. He writes of data and artificial intelligence as if they were the same thing: they are not. | Given the current anti-expert feeling, I’m reluctant to criticise a movement that would make better social use of data, but Evgeny Morozov’s call for data populism (“Data populists must seize our information for the benefit of us all”, In Focus, last week) fails on a number of points. He writes of data and artificial intelligence as if they were the same thing: they are not. |
| More worryingly, he seems to have taken the “data is the new oil” mantra a little too literally. Unlike oil, data doesn’t exist independent of action. It isn’t sitting in the ground waiting to be discovered. It only exists because people take action, and others – often companies – take time and effort (and use money) to collect and analyse it. Similarly, data doesn’t become valuable simply by putting it in a database. Without extensive cleaning, linking and analysis, you’re just paying a large amount of money for storage. And AI doesn’t simply turn data into profit – it takes significant effort (and money) to make AI useful. | More worryingly, he seems to have taken the “data is the new oil” mantra a little too literally. Unlike oil, data doesn’t exist independent of action. It isn’t sitting in the ground waiting to be discovered. It only exists because people take action, and others – often companies – take time and effort (and use money) to collect and analyse it. Similarly, data doesn’t become valuable simply by putting it in a database. Without extensive cleaning, linking and analysis, you’re just paying a large amount of money for storage. And AI doesn’t simply turn data into profit – it takes significant effort (and money) to make AI useful. |
| It seems Morozov is simply calling for the nationalisation of data without consideration for what that might actually mean: a lost cause, even if it were possible to pin data down to a nation. But there are positive options for making data serve people, not just profits – through the application of data and AI to the public and third sectors. And that is both practical and achievable today.Duncan RossTrustee, DataKindLondon EC1 | It seems Morozov is simply calling for the nationalisation of data without consideration for what that might actually mean: a lost cause, even if it were possible to pin data down to a nation. But there are positive options for making data serve people, not just profits – through the application of data and AI to the public and third sectors. And that is both practical and achievable today.Duncan RossTrustee, DataKindLondon EC1 |
| Trust teachers, not pollsters | Trust teachers, not pollsters |
| The mood in our school staffroom was buoyant at the revelation that teachers scored 88% in the veracity index (“Britain’s trust deficit is getting worse” News, last week). However, we had to raise a collective eyebrow at the finding that pollsters scored as high as 49%.Steve NewmanSunderland | The mood in our school staffroom was buoyant at the revelation that teachers scored 88% in the veracity index (“Britain’s trust deficit is getting worse” News, last week). However, we had to raise a collective eyebrow at the finding that pollsters scored as high as 49%.Steve NewmanSunderland |
| A better Murray legacy | A better Murray legacy |
| Dunblane Community Council opposed Judy Murray’s Park of Keir proposal (“Murray says it’s now or never for tennis academy to build on sons’ legacy”, Comment, 27 November) after considering the plans in detail. It is completely against the recently approved local development plan. There is widespread local opposition, especially to the housing and the site. | Dunblane Community Council opposed Judy Murray’s Park of Keir proposal (“Murray says it’s now or never for tennis academy to build on sons’ legacy”, Comment, 27 November) after considering the plans in detail. It is completely against the recently approved local development plan. There is widespread local opposition, especially to the housing and the site. |
| The developer insists that the housing must be part of the proposal. They and Murray know this is the issue for the community. A public inquiry highlighted that the housing only provides about £2m net towards the tennis centre. Murray is now suggesting she can “drum up” funding from benefactors. So why not drum up all the required finance, instead of building controversial houses on greenbelt land? The proposal is being imposed on the community. It is in the wrong place, too big for local needs and likely to run at a loss. | The developer insists that the housing must be part of the proposal. They and Murray know this is the issue for the community. A public inquiry highlighted that the housing only provides about £2m net towards the tennis centre. Murray is now suggesting she can “drum up” funding from benefactors. So why not drum up all the required finance, instead of building controversial houses on greenbelt land? The proposal is being imposed on the community. It is in the wrong place, too big for local needs and likely to run at a loss. |
| The alternative could be a “Murray legacy” of community based tennis facilities benefiting all of Scotland. The same funding could build several smaller indoor tennis courts across the country and would offer a much more sustainable and fitting legacy to the Murray brothers’ success than one big tennis centre, built in the teeth of local opposition on a windy, wet, hillside just three miles from the National Tennis Centre.David Prescott, Rosemary HunterDunblane Community Council | The alternative could be a “Murray legacy” of community based tennis facilities benefiting all of Scotland. The same funding could build several smaller indoor tennis courts across the country and would offer a much more sustainable and fitting legacy to the Murray brothers’ success than one big tennis centre, built in the teeth of local opposition on a windy, wet, hillside just three miles from the National Tennis Centre.David Prescott, Rosemary HunterDunblane Community Council |
| Justice for media libel victims | Justice for media libel victims |
| Nick Cohen (“How our laws inspired Trump’s attack on free speech”, last week) criticises Sir Brian Leveson for not “cutting the costs of libel and privacy actions and opening the courts to all”. Yet this is precisely what Leveson has proposed. His report starts from the premise that anyone with a genuine case should be able to sue, but recognises that hardly anyone can afford to risk hundreds of thousands of pounds in the high court. | Nick Cohen (“How our laws inspired Trump’s attack on free speech”, last week) criticises Sir Brian Leveson for not “cutting the costs of libel and privacy actions and opening the courts to all”. Yet this is precisely what Leveson has proposed. His report starts from the premise that anyone with a genuine case should be able to sue, but recognises that hardly anyone can afford to risk hundreds of thousands of pounds in the high court. |
| Leveson’s solution is inexpensive arbitration. But if a major newspaper or wealthy individual refuses and insists on going to court, it should pay the costs of both sides. That is only fair. If you and I are travelling and you insist on hiring a Rolls Royce when I can only afford the bus, it’s only right that you should pay. | Leveson’s solution is inexpensive arbitration. But if a major newspaper or wealthy individual refuses and insists on going to court, it should pay the costs of both sides. That is only fair. If you and I are travelling and you insist on hiring a Rolls Royce when I can only afford the bus, it’s only right that you should pay. |
| My family charity does indeed fund IPRT, recognised as charitable by the upper tribunal. IPRT funds Impress, a Leveson-compliant press regulator. Impress offers inexpensive arbitration. | My family charity does indeed fund IPRT, recognised as charitable by the upper tribunal. IPRT funds Impress, a Leveson-compliant press regulator. Impress offers inexpensive arbitration. |
| The only logical explanation for newspapers refusing to join Impress, or make their own Independent Press Standards Organisation regulator Leveson-compliant, is they don’t want ordinary members of the public to be able to sue them. Understandable, perhaps, but then they should say so and not pretend Leveson’s proposals amount to state control of the press.Max MosleyLondon SW3 | The only logical explanation for newspapers refusing to join Impress, or make their own Independent Press Standards Organisation regulator Leveson-compliant, is they don’t want ordinary members of the public to be able to sue them. Understandable, perhaps, but then they should say so and not pretend Leveson’s proposals amount to state control of the press.Max MosleyLondon SW3 |
| Suez and the Observer | Suez and the Observer |
| David Mitchell’s piece in your 225th anniversary supplement encapsulated exactly why I’ve read the Observer for more than 60 years. As a young national service subaltern, I was sent to Port Said in 1956 in the belief that “they” must know what they’re doing. Out there, we saw UK papers a day or two late and I was surprised and shocked by the discrepancies between what I had seen and what was reported. | David Mitchell’s piece in your 225th anniversary supplement encapsulated exactly why I’ve read the Observer for more than 60 years. As a young national service subaltern, I was sent to Port Said in 1956 in the belief that “they” must know what they’re doing. Out there, we saw UK papers a day or two late and I was surprised and shocked by the discrepancies between what I had seen and what was reported. |
| I don’t ever remember seeing the Observer but, after returning home in January, 1957,, it became obvious why. My parents explained that they had stopped taking it because of the dreadful slurs on the efforts of our boys. I’m not sure whether I ever convinced them that David Astor was absolutely on the button accusing Eden of “folly and crookedness”, but I certainly was. | I don’t ever remember seeing the Observer but, after returning home in January, 1957,, it became obvious why. My parents explained that they had stopped taking it because of the dreadful slurs on the efforts of our boys. I’m not sure whether I ever convinced them that David Astor was absolutely on the button accusing Eden of “folly and crookedness”, but I certainly was. |
| Since then, I have bolstered my conviction that “they” don’t always know what they’re doing by maintaining my readership of this paper which shares my values.Melville ThomsonArnside, Cumbria | Since then, I have bolstered my conviction that “they” don’t always know what they’re doing by maintaining my readership of this paper which shares my values.Melville ThomsonArnside, Cumbria |