I'm all for privacy and so is QMC. The dire vis

I'm all for privacy and so is QMC.

The dire visions of digital dictatorship expounded today are a worry.
I worry that "they" have already won, for the simple reason that our cellphones are traitors to us all.

I watch the detective shows and they use so much technical surveillance that its a wonder crime has not been wiped out already.
On one show you can see them
read someone's emails and voicemails on their phone
use the car to tell them where you have been
use the cellphone to tell your location real-time
use a cigarette pack to tell what store you bought it at
use the cellphone to tell who called you and vice versa
search documents on your phone
Etc.

If they get a hold of your laptop, well, most people have their whole life recorded on those machines now.

There is one legitimate organization fighting the cellphone issue and all the other privacy and personal freedom issues actively and efficiently and they are seeking donations - The I ACLU.ORG .
Check them out because they're actively fighting "them".
Quote: Today, years of hard-fought civil liberty protections are under threat — and to influence lawmakers, we need everyone to get involved.

I also want to remind everyone that QMC was featured at the Monday, April 20, 2020, Atlantic Council ’s GeoTech Center panel of experts in the fields of health science, digital technologies, workplace law, and data privacy. Jay Williams CTO represented Quantum Materials Corp.

Read the Event recap Major takeaways on strategic standards now, so people can return to work soon

The discussion centered on how to assure privacy with data controls

Excerpt-
A data trust backed by public trust
The panelists were quick to summarize the nature of the game: balancing data privacy against utility within the bounds of the social contracts of liberal democracies. They acknowledged a need to establish public trust that the data helping nations recover from the pandemic would be used responsible—particularly challenging in the wake of previous incursions on privacy that stemmed from responses to crisis, such as the Patriot Act, enacted after 9/11. The most referenced model for using data responsibly and productively was a data trust. If this framework could legislate accountability, be designed for privacy, and operate with transparency, it could provide the solutions needed to arrive at a new normal.

As they considered how to best develop and administer a data trust, discussants also debated the future role of the nation-state. Several noted that politics and electoral incentives were hindering good policy and that there was a dearth of technical expertise among even experienced policy-makers. And while they looked to industry and its expertise for making quick and informed decisions, others worried about the difficulty of creating private sector accountability, of preserving citizen ownership of data and trust in its stewards, and of providing directed, national leadership. Still more panelists considered using broader organizations—either the UN or a confederation of NGOs—to coordinate the international jurisdictions, standards, and administration, though the shortcomings of those organizations were also noted. Last, respondents acknowledged how technology itself could provide some solutions: for example, block chains could provide a transparent audit of data use, and differential privacy might provide an interface to legislate quantifiable degrees of privacy. Even these measures have limits though, and the panel was eager to see the creation of a data system designed and legislated for transparent privacy, not one merely forced into it with complex technical measures. ///

My point is this matter has always been a concern of QMC and QMCH was set up to provide data privacy.