We should mean almost, digitally. With serious considerations to best practices, widely acceptable principles including that of, directly and indirectly related, applicable laws and, if any, for the sake of thoughtful and sensible transparency. Almost everything, in this case is about, as nations and industries are already taking it as an initiative to protect entities such as people, enterprises, assets, properties including but not limited to information, which is the sole subject of information security specialists but it's reality is more complicated than arguing on which security can cover which area. Technology practitioners should appreciate it. Those who goes beyond a few specializations could realized it and make an effective position paramount to a cybersecurity responsibility. And the size of that responsibility may mean breaking and delegating it with various roles, with those who are effective and prudent in their jobs.
The superpower in computing, that is fast calculation with the ability to capture data being processed and repurpose accordingly, has done a lot for devices and technology that we now call smart.
We need to remember that semantics in these were not at all an assurance of strict facilities which outcome must be trusted as if all candid.
There are lots of these systems for every single individual and machine. When we use them for work, professional and market opportunities, and to communicate with friends and family members we are generating volumes of data. Systems are designed to help provide now intuitive insights, think of analytics technology where decision points are made very easy, and even interpret machine level information for people to understand.
With work and individual associated data, we need to be a little more inquisitive. Security and privacy enabling technologies are supporting our services and data processing productivity but being, always and by default with, everywhere, an overall and wide ranging trustworthy mechanism, must not be left alone to technology and even our own processes, significantly the unverified.
Trustworthy systems are reinforced by people, on top of most things. The ability to distinguish disequilibriums in responsibilities with which tasks and activities keep making both input and output precarious is very important. It will push change forward for the better.
People build systems including the amalgamation of technologies which made up the whole thing that's been employed for the society to use. Devises policies for social and business services that build customers' loyalty. Induces feedback mechanisms.
When all of these are not attended to prudently or when rules were thrusted to single-sided and limited interest, no matter how and what we want to be trustworthy as we have been dreaming about and the changes we are introducing to make, there will never be like it as we have easily spoken them, that can be expected and will work for people in reality.
There are technologies, policies, authorities, responsibilities, assignments, initiatives and feedback mechanisms in place and we have seen them to few. We need to make them judicious and as a general honest practice in our trustworthy system. Then we can be prospective and advertent of irregularities, and serious about people and the support necessary, to bring about change for systems conducive and deserving of life and humanity.
Did we think that they probably work because they are in our existence if not being caused for show and sacrifice a little for more by greedy deep-pocketed enterprises--we should think of everything not only about people?
When can we prevent earnings that were made only for opportunist and lazy, public outcry ignored until the nerves of the corrupted virtue in politicians and businessmen playing-safe have reacted, trustworthy systems that remained and will always be an idea of highly educated people and robots who has been continuously weaponized by their predators to trick their own kind mostly unsuspecting innocents and their languages?
How can we develop learning fundamentals so that independence is attributable to every individual and have a mind and decision of their own, knowing clearly what gullible is?
Didn't they come and haven't stayed in a swamp, weren't most human matters designed so elusive, hatful as well as nuts?
We can learn fast and correct if we are to follow but don't attend school for this.
Profundity in questions elicit trustworthy answers. Problem solving differ in this mode. In execution it ultimately explores, and commits to the aggregation of, data, administration of events and consistencies in the outcomes.
It can be understood that variability in issues, concerns, irregularities and even intelligence in any process or situation, and subtleties in the language used only creates more skeptics and suspicions in their worst about a subject alone.
It perturbs good-natured efforts and acceptable social norms. Where there is more dependence on impulse and shallow thinking instead of formulating measurable goals and improve the certainty of its achievement.
Q&A is appropriate in differing scenarios. Its application is broad. Done in academic exercise, professional associations, conferences and seminars, project, research, peer review, business including but not limited to governance. For instance, the capabilities in Q&A renders the real motive of the usual and old single-party induced cleverly crafted, ripped contracts and agreements which is still the case nowadays.
Q&A and problem solving, being used together for a purpose, can exhaust possibilities in every solution and path of a meaningful journey in which we all only want to be successful.
When applied accordingly, in continuity of best practices, uninterrupted developments and general safety, the people behind it and the institutions they are running determines whether or not we have become inutile and smarmy and so are the societal instruments we look up to for fundamental guidance and examples of good behaviors and mother wit.
We will just not nod to every idea. No more of that. Therefor, vigilance and analytical prudence shall be the part of our system. Dependence on such system means that we build technology and data to help concretize decisions and processes, improve operating integrity in a lot of things and better manageability of situations. And avoid to not mistakenly used technology and data as if they have already formed the singular mechanism and source of human wisdom.
Explicit language could be better defined and agreed upon if none has been established yet. So it must be useful and admirable all the time and around.
Comments