@eerkeboiten
Prof Cyber Security and Head of School Computer Science and Informatics at De Montfort University. Own views. He/him. Formal methods (last ever books on Z or refinement). Cyber security. Privacy. Data politics. Not all hypes. DM:eerke.boiten@dmu.ac.uk.
Republicans are using kids as a smokescreen for what Big Tech lobbyists want: a national surveillance program to harvest our data with zero protections for people and their privacy.
We must fight this dangerous expansion of surveillance technology.
He only quit the Greens after he was suspended for transphobia. A matter of days ago, he was claiming that the Greens want to dish out "puberty blockers like confectionery."
What despicable little man.
This looks like a great opportunity for someone working on data governance, to lead the Data Empowerment Clinic at King's: www.kcl.ac.uk/jobs/139965-...
"Families of failed asylum seekers will be offered up to £40,000 to leave the UK under a trial scheme announced by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood."
Previously, on the "Island of strangers"...
What a line up. The cheaters of 2006, 2010 and 2022 with Trump.
"British female track and field athletes are being asked to cover the cost of their own £185 sex tests if they want to compete internationally"
A tax on women courtesy of the Gender Critical.
You know feminism /s 🙄
archive.is/2026.03.05-1...
Out now! Morgan’s Formal Methods, Informally | An undergraduate textbook showing how to use formal methods informally, without formal logic, to write and maintain computer programs.
Find out more: ☑️ https://cup.org/4rMx5A4
Parliament should take steps to ban this technology. There is no good and proportional reason to allow private companies to analyse and store people's biometric data, especially without notice or consent.
www.ft.com/content/adb3...
Hey all, sorry to say this, as I think I have well-intentioned friends who signed, but this "declaration" means nothing. Because Steve Bannon signed it, and he wants my family dead. So if you can sign along side him? At best, you got played. He's the "humanity in control". humanstatement.org
Google AI attributing the Noem quote to Orwell, Feb 2024.
The reason so many people challenge this quote is because they probably stopped paying attention to Orwell after his 1984 master piece, he said this 40 years later.
This article was amended on 5 March 2026. An earlier version said low-skilled workers would “receive immediate access to welfare and social housing” if Labour did not make them wait longer to apply for settlement. In fact, settlement status only gives people the eligibility to apply for welfare and social housing, it does not give them instant or automatic access to such benefits. This has been clarified. From breaking news to huge investigative proje
Guardian has now [after my complaint] corrected Mahmood's deliberate & incendiary false claim settlement gives immigrants "immediate access to welfare and social housing".
Good for Gdn but embarrassing/shameful that Home Secretary deliberately misled the public for political gain like this.
Dear Shabana, I notice today that you referred to me in your speech on immigration at the IPPR think tank. You said: “A party leader should not be on the beaches of France encouraging people to make a perilous crossing on small boats.” I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised especially after the hateful Labour campaign in Gorton and Denton, but this is just the latest in a string of lies peddled by a discredited Government who intentionally fan the flames of racism and division. When I went to Calais, I was not there to encourage people to travel to the UK. I was there to see at first hand the suffering your Government and successive Governments have done in demonising migrants in a pathetic bid to pander to the base instincts of Reform and the flawed strategy of Morgan McSweeney. As you will know, if you even bothered to research my visit instead of taking Reform talking points, I was there to witness the brutality of families living in tents in freezing temperatures. I filled water tanks and picked up litter. What that visit did do is confirm my belief that if we are to smash the boat gangs and stop the boats, we need to offer safer and managed routes for migrants to come to this country. Showing compassion as a politician is not a crime. In fact, we need to see much more of it. It reminded me of a young MP who in October 2015 spent three days in Lesbos helping migrants fleeing war-torn Syria. She posted videos on X, talked about handing out water and croissants to refugees and food parcels. When she returned to the UK, she wrote a very moving piece in the New Statesman. She said “we have to work with our European partners and create new, safe, and legal routes for refugees to get to Europe. We cannot abandon them to their fate, left as prey for smugglers whilst risking death on the seas.” She said “maybe we can make ourselves feel better by saying no-one is making them get on the boats. And again, the Home Secretary is not entirely wrong when …
Dear Shabana,
Let's clear some things up around migration and remember we're talking about people's lives.
8 years ago I could do amateur talks about AI ethics with the opening that the crisis was the coming together of abandonment of responsibility in two dimensions: "big" data and "algorithms" ...
Last year when I was checking into a hotel, the desk person was wearing Meta glasses. I kindly asked them to take them off. They were annoyed. I said, “I do not consent to you looking at my credit card and ID with Meta glasses on.” My instincts were correct: www.bbc.com/news/article...
Suspicious, not aware that Michael Gove knows anything about AI. You already know that their reporting on you is in bad faith. I wouldn't.
If access to comms and/or location data, possibly in unstructured text form, possibly in overwhelming quantities, LLMs could contribute to doxing of some sorts - guessing addresses of target persons and their associates. (But I agree with @jackstilgoe.bsky.social on offloading responsibility.)
Maybe a side branch but I went back to the "IDF using AI for identifying targets" story - a system called Lavender but IDF denies it's AI ("just a database" www.theguardian.com/world/2024/a...) and others call it an AI Decision Support System, not necessarily LLM then brill.com/view/journal....
Yeah nice but to some (the bodily autonomy police) the main goal is to socially isolate and eliminate trans kids and others by removing their online support networks. "Social contagion".
"would otherwise receive immediate access to welfare and social housing" is BS.
Correct: "after 5 years working in a care home, would be eligible to apply for welfare and social housing on the same basis as the rest of us."
www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...
Deliberately misleading/disingenous.
There is just something deeply disturbing and offensive about watching a Labour govt keep kicking the most vulnerable in our society.
A quick note on that new "AI declaration", which is mostly just a bit clueless but which also assembled some of the most vile people on the planet for a bunch of scientists and activists to put there name next to.
https://tante.cc/2026/03/05/nothing-to-declare/
I refer you to the text of my Stage 1a and Stage 1b points which I adopt without repeating. Laura Kuenssberg said “Attention's focused on who should be able to access single-sex spaces, like changing rooms. The Supreme Court said in April that it was biological sex, not a trans person's chosen gender, that should determine the answer.” Her statement is (1) wrong and also (2) wrong in a profoundly important way. That it is (1) wrong is evident from an interview published with Lord Hodge, the presiding Supreme Court judge in that decision. In The Times on 12 September 2025 he said: "Hodge, who presided over the case with two female justices, defended the decision and pointed out that the case before the court had nothing to do with how or where single-sex spaces should be created. 'These points weren’t argued before us,' he said. 'We were not there to decide points that were not put to us or were not raised in the course of argument, because we hadn’t heard each side’s position on it.'" His point, which is also evident from the Supreme Court’s Press Summary (https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf), is that what the Supreme Court decided was what "man" "woman" and "sex" meant in the Equality Act.
![The decision clearly has very important implications for single sex spaces. But those implications are not settled and are still being worked out in the Courts. This is evident from the fact that there have been three employment tribunal cases which have gone in different directions on single sex spaces in the workplace. Moreover, in GLP v EHRC [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin) at paragraph 61 the High Court recognised outside the workplace that permitting trans women to use the “female” lavatory whilst requiring other biological men to use the male lavatory could be lawful.
It also cannot be ignored that the Supreme Court itself said “we have concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing important protection under the EA 2010 from trans people”.
It is entirely wrong to say, as Kuenssberg did, that the implications of For Women Scotland for single sex spaces were settled by the Supreme Court decision.
It is (2) wrong in a profoundly important way because Laura Kuenssberg’s false statement gives the impression to the schools and employers and service providers who are seeking to comply with the law in a compassionate and inclusive fashion that they have no choice but to exclude trans people from single sex spaces. That is simply not what the Supreme Court decided - as Lord Hodge, the Presiding Judge, made clear.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:xurjtu2wa2akyi64gab34ahg/bafkreiccxws7tnivfr4rh4gagmpjgoogqna5tfanqervsfgi4qj6yxa7i4@jpeg)
The decision clearly has very important implications for single sex spaces. But those implications are not settled and are still being worked out in the Courts. This is evident from the fact that there have been three employment tribunal cases which have gone in different directions on single sex spaces in the workplace. Moreover, in GLP v EHRC [2026] EWHC 279 (Admin) at paragraph 61 the High Court recognised outside the workplace that permitting trans women to use the “female” lavatory whilst requiring other biological men to use the male lavatory could be lawful. It also cannot be ignored that the Supreme Court itself said “we have concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing important protection under the EA 2010 from trans people”. It is entirely wrong to say, as Kuenssberg did, that the implications of For Women Scotland for single sex spaces were settled by the Supreme Court decision. It is (2) wrong in a profoundly important way because Laura Kuenssberg’s false statement gives the impression to the schools and employers and service providers who are seeking to comply with the law in a compassionate and inclusive fashion that they have no choice but to exclude trans people from single sex spaces. That is simply not what the Supreme Court decided - as Lord Hodge, the Presiding Judge, made clear.
And this is the renewed complaint I have today made to the BBC's Executive Complaints Unit.
The BBC, an important cause of the rising tide of transphobia that shames the United Kingdom, is unlikely to correct its mistake.
So we will then look to what further remedies we have.
There's nothing controversial about E2EE.
Unless you think it's controversial for private conversations to be.... private?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
"The UK lost its measles elimination status before we did"
whatever else we do
we need to make it illegal for chatbots to call themselves "i," "me," and otherwise pretend to be people
it's not innate to llms -- it's part of the interface layer between the user and the statistical model
and it can be gotten rid of
Your prompt doesn't even have to scan :)
Anthropic and Palantir tech was used by the US military to target lethal strikes in Iran www.theguardian.com/technology/2...
The Guardian is promoting a commercial enterprise the profits from which will be used to harass, exclude and victimise one of the most vulnerable groups in the country.
Brilliant. An expat im Dubai has a startling revelation, by @stephencollins.bsky.social
