This bunch are not as fresh as my usual posts, but are a range of things over the last few weeks that are worth bringing to your attention.
For me, studying copyright law seemed like quite a treadmil; the more I learned, the more complicated it got. I’m pleased to know I was not alone in this, because a recent High Court judgement found even the Copyright Tribunal were a bit confused as to what they were supposed to be doing. The press coverage is here, and the case report here.
Next, the recent edition of New Scientist looks at statistics quoted when considering DNA evidence.
The DNA analyst who testified in Smith’s trial said the chances of the DNA coming from someone other than Jackson were 1 in 95,000. But both the prosecution and the analyst’s supervisor said the odds were more like 1 in 47. A later review of the evidence suggested that the chances of the second person’s DNA coming from someone other than Jackson were closer to 1 in 13, while a different statistical method said the chance of seeing this evidence if the DNA came from Jackson is only twice that of the chance of seeing it if it came from someone else
Take a look at the full article here.
A survey by Sailpoint found that departing employees are now quite likely to pilfer client data, and our US cousins are slightly more inclined to do this than us. 23% of polled UK employees said they would take customer lists with them. The initial report is here, and there is more discussion at The Register.
On a personal note, I learned today that I do not have the right sort of personality to work for the government. I think I’m quite proud of that.