Mobile apps may or may not be collecting your child’s data—but here’s why you should assume they are

This week two democratic senators are calling on federal regulators to investigate if children’s apps are tracking their data.

Senators Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut sent a letter on Wednesday to the Federal Trade Commission, writing they are concerned that numerous apps are potentially violating the law.

Without explicit parental consent, it is illegal to collect data on children under the age of 13 according to the Children Online Privacy Protection Act, which went into effect in 2000.

This comes after last month when the New Mexico Attorney Generalsued the maker of app Fun Kid Racing, as well as the online ad businesses run by Google, Twitter and three other companies.

The suit accused the companies of violating the law, and that Google misled parents by allowing apps to remain in its Google Play store children’s section after it was notified by researchers that thousands of apps may be tracking young children.

“The problem is this – we don’t know where the onus lies,” New York Times reporter Edmund Lee told CNBC’s “On the Money” in an interview.

Lee says the law isn’t clear on whether it should be the platform such as Google or Apple to make sure the apps in their stores are complying with the law, whether it’s up to the game developer or if it should be up to the third party data firm tracking the data.

“So there’s a whole system in place that everyone keeps passing the buck and there’s no case law yet,” says Lee. “Even the legislation – it’s not entirely clear who is ultimately responsible.”

Fortnite

So what should a parent do if they are concerned their child is being tracked?

Lee says, “You should just assume it’s going to happen you should assume you’re going to be tracked.”

“Right now it’s the ‘Wild West’ there are very few protections, few sort of places of enforcement around it, and that’s why it’s hard as a parent and as a kid to navigate,” he added.

However, Lee notes most of these are harmless games, and the tracking data is used for advertising purposes, which is how these companies make money.

For parents worried about their child’s privacy – Lee says he tells his own daughter to keep her communication online only with people she knows.

“You’re not going to be able to look and know every single piece of data that’s being floated out there until there’s legislation and case law in place. But in the meantime make sure you know who your kid is talking to and it shouldn’t be strangers and it shouldn’t be someone they just met online.”

[“source=businessinsider”]

How IIMs are using CAT 2018 to take in more non-engineers

IIMs want students to come from diverse academic backgrounds and therefore IIM professors are trying to redesign questions for its MBA entrance exam CAT.  Photo: HT

IIMs want students to come from diverse academic backgrounds and therefore IIM professors are trying to redesign questions for its MBA entrance exam CAT. Photo: HT

New Delhi: As their classrooms continue to be dominated by men and engineers, the Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) are trying to add diversity, which will ultimately show up in corporate boardrooms over the next few years. At the centre of this strategy is IIM’s Common Admission Test (CAT 2018), which will see a change in the type of questions being asked.

Although the IIMs have decided not to change the broad pattern in this year’s CAT examination, yet questions will be framed in a manner to create a level field for students from all streams, including arts and commerce.

IIM officials say they do not want the CAT pattern to be biased towards engineering students as there is a need for academic diversity in India’s top B-schools.

What kind of questions should you expect in the CAT

CAT 2018 convener and IIM Calcutta professor Sumanta Basu told Livemint that there was no significant change in the broad pattern of the CAT exam. The IIMs are continuing with the same set of three sections:

Section I: Verbal ability and reading comprehension

Section II: Data interpretation and logical reasoning

Section III: Quantitative ability

But within these sections, there is a change. “We may focus on questions that test candidates on fundamentals,” Basu said. “Our effort will primarily involve framing the correct types of questions instead of changing the pattern altogether,” he added.

The CAT exam does not have a syllabus. Only mocks tests, to be posted soon on the CAT website, can help you understand the pattern of questions. In the three-hour-long computer-based exam, candidates get 60 minutes each for the three sections.

According to analysis of previous CAT exams by coaching centres, the focus has been more on testing reasoning and analytical ability than grammar and vocabulary. This could be a reason why engineers have the upper hand in the CAT.

How are engineers filling up IIMs in large numbers

If you walk into a typical classroom in any of the 20 IIMs in India, chances are high you will encounter students who have already completed their engineering courses. Even popular author Chetan Bhagat first studied in IIT Delhi and then joined IIM Ahmedabad before working as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs.

IIM Calcutta, ranked consistently among the top management colleges in India, has an overwhelming number of 88% students coming in from an engineering background. The figures may be better in some other IIMs, like the one in Ahmedabad (68%), but the IIMs remain a bastion of engineering graduates.

Engineers dominate list of top scorers in the CAT exams. In 2017, there were only three non-engineers who scored 100 percentile.

What are the other changes in IIM selection process

Over the last few years, the IIMs have been making concentrated efforts to have more academic diversity, not just through the CAT but via other aspects of the selection process.

IIM Calcutta, for example, allots only 15 points out of 50 to the CAT score the while personal interview (PI) and a written ability test (WAT) together receive almost double the weight (24+5). Therefore, a candidate who can write well on a given topic has a higher chance of getting through IIM Calcutta than someone who is good in analysis but has poor writing and communication skills.

IIM Bangalore, on the other hand, wants you to be at your best in PI. The weightage is 30 for PI and 25 for CAT.

If you are applying to IIM Ahmedabad then a science student has to score at least 55% in class XII exams to get 1 point in the preliminary screening process while a commerce student needs only 50% and arts 45%.

How are IIMs giving importance to gender diversity

Besides skewed towards engineers, classrooms at IIMs are also skewed against the fairer sex. IIMs, both old and new ones, are walking the extra mile to ensure that women representation.

The admission of girls in IIMs during the last three years has shown an increasing trend with the total women admitted going up from 881 in 2015-17 to 1211 in 2017-19, according to the union ministry of human resource development. IIM Ahmedabad’s flagship PGP course saw 28% women students in 2017, as compared to 14% women in 2015.

IIM Rohtak has been the most successful so far in gender diversity with a ratio of over 50% going in favour of women.

[“Source-livemint”]

Family Office Leaders are Eager for Insights

Family Office Leaders are Eager for Insights

ILLUSTRATION: GETTY IMAGES

Single-family offices serving the financial and wealth management interests of rich families have become a growing force in global markets as wealth has boomed.

In the last 10 years, the number of single-family offices managing wealth management, investing and philanthropic needs for families with at least $200 million has doubled to as many as 15,000, according to Citi Private Bank. Yet little is known about how many of these offices—managing several trillion dollars of assets—operate. Even executives who run single-family offices are often in the dark about what their peers do.

But unlike the past, these execs are not as worried about privacy and confidentiality—they want to reach out and learn from other family offices. They view their role as more as an emissary for the families they serve, rather than a “gatekeeper,” keeping other outside experts at bay, says Stephen Campbell, chairman of Citi Private Bank’s global family office group, and the former chief investment officer of a large Seattle-based family office.

One way the veil can be lifted is by getting family office executives together, which private banks and wealth managers that serve them as advisors and bankers, try to do. In fact, many single-family office practitioners, once happy to work alone, are now eager for insights they can gain from their peers and will seek out opportunities to network with the right people, Campbell says.

“We’ve seen a significant pick up in interest in (learning) what’s working, what’s not working and how they can learn from the mistakes of others,” he says.

A familiar adage in financial services is that, “if you’ve seen one family office, you’ve seen one family office,” meaning, no two are alike. But the truth is, the operations of most family offices are very much the same, he says. Most of them have to manage investment portfolios, estate planning and philanthropy, as well as paying bills and handling legal affairs.

“Where they differ is in areas of culture and values, and in the governance biases and practices of the family,” he says.

Campbell’s insights are well-founded: Citi works with 1,100 family offices, most of them serving a single family. Most also use Citi as their primary bank, he says.

How families communicate with the offices that run their wealth management needs is one area that can differ wildly. One of the families Citi works with, for example, established a family office in a separate jurisdiction from where they lived, a practice that can provide tax advantages. The office was set up nine years ago with a staff to run it, but as of today, no one in the family has ever been there, Campbell says.

At the other extreme, a principal member of another family that works with Citi goes into his family office every Thursday, sometimes with other family members, and they cook a meal together with the staff. “Oddly enough, those are both models that work,” he says.

Citi has found families are willing to share what’s worked for them on a range of topics if they can exchange ideas with families of a similar wealth level and degree of sophistication. Two years ago, the private bank began a “family office leadership program” in New York, which includes 125 family-office executives serving the world’s “most affluent families,” Campbell says. The event has now spread to programs in Hong Kong and Dubai, and elsewhere to accommodate demand.

Because it’s difficult to cover all the topics families want to discuss, Citi is now rolling out a series of articles and white papers on nitty-gritty topics, like, “why family offices are increasingly relying upon bespoke remuneration packages to attract top executive talent” and “how grooming tomorrow’s family leaders can help preserve family wealth and influence and prevent discord in the family.”

There are a lot of “how-to” manuals on how to set up and run a family office, Campbell says, but “the nuance is in how and when to apply these concepts, and that’s what we’re tackling with these articles.”

[“Source-barrons”]

Legislators Are Missing the Point on Facebook

Legislators Are Missing the Point on Facebook

HIGHLIGHTS

  • The real issue: How our data get used
  • Facebook has been quite open and obvious about their skeevy practices
  • America needs a smarter conversation about data usage

I’m getting increasingly baffled and disappointed by the scandal-cum-congressional-ragefest surrounding Facebook. Instead of piling on Mark Zuckerberg or worrying about who has our personal data, legislators should focus on the real issue: How our data get used.

Let’s start with some ground truths that seem to be getting lost:

– Cambridge Analytica, the company the hoovered up a bunch of data on Facebook users, isn’t actually much of a threat. Yes, it’s super sleazy, but it mostly sucked at manipulating voters.

– Lots of other companies – maybe hundreds! – and “malicious actors” also collect our data. They’re much more likely to be selling our personal information to fraudsters.

– We should not expect Zuckerberg to follow through on any promises. He’s tried to make nice before to little actual effect. He has a lot of conflicts and he’s kind of a naive robot.

– Even if Zuckerberg was a saint and didn’t care a whit about profit, chances are social media is still just plain bad for democracy.

Politicians don’t want to admit that they don’t understand technology well enough to come up with reasonable regulations. Now that democracy itself might be at stake, they need someone to blame. Enter Zuckerberg, the perfect punching bag. Problem is, he likely did nothing illegal, and Facebook has been relatively open and obvious about their skeevy business practices. For the most part, nobody really cared until now. (If that sounds cynical, I’ll add: Democrats didn’t care until it looked like Republican campaigns were catching up to or even surpassing them with big data techniques.)

What America really needs is a smarter conversation about data usage. It starts with a recognition: Our data are already out there. Even if we haven’t spilled our own personal information, someone has. We’re all exposed. Companies have the data and techniques they need to predict all sorts of things about us: our voting behaviour, our consumer behaviour, our health, our financial futures. That’s a lot of power being wielded by people who shouldn’t be trusted.

If politicians want to create rules, they should start by narrowly addressing the worst possible uses for our personal information – the ways it can be used to deny people job opportunities, limit access to health insurance, set interest rates on loans and decide who gets out of jail. Essentially any bureaucratic decision can now be made by algorithm, and those algorithms need interrogating way more than Zuckerberg does.

To that end, I propose a Data Bill of Rights. It should have two components: The first would specify how much control we may exert over how our individual information is used for important decisions, and the second would introduce federally enforced rules on how algorithms should be monitored more generally.

The individual rights could be loosely based on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which allows us to access the data employed to generate our credit scores. Most scoring algorithms work in a similar way, so this would be a reasonable model. As regards aggregate data, we should have the right to know what information algorithms are using to make decisions about us. We should be able to correct the record if it’s wrong, and to appeal scores if we think they’re unfair. We should be entitled to know how the algorithms work: How, for example, will my score change if I miss an electricity bill? This is a bit more than FCRA now provides.

Further, Congress should create a new regulator – along the lines of the Food and Drug Administration – to ensure that every important, large-scale algorithm can pass three basic tests (Disclosure: I have a company that offers such algorithm-auditing services.):

– It’s at least as good as the human process it replaces (this will force companies to admit how they define “success” for an algorithm, which far too often simply translates into profit),

– It doesn’t disproportionately fail when dealing with protected classes (as facial recognition software is known to do);

– It doesn’t cause crazy negative externalities, such as destroying people’s trust in facts or sense of self-worth. Companies wielding algorithms that could have such long-term negative effects would be monitored by third parties who aren’t beholden to shareholders.

I’m no policy wonk, and I recognise that it’s not easy to grasp the magnitude and complexity of the mess we’re in. A few simple rules, though, could go a long way toward limiting the damage.

[“Source-gadgets.ndtv”]