Last week the headline was: "Microsoft shops crowd sentiment analysis engine to Republic and Democratic National Conventions" where the lead line was about Microsoft monetizing their research. Today the headline is: "Romanian spies want to spot faces in a crowd - illegally, say human rights groups" In their defence, the intelligence agency says that "The system does not collect new data. It only analyses existing data, based on algorithms." OK then. That makes it all right.

I can't think of a better demonstration of the necessity for transparency and public oversight in the development and deployment of technologies that collect, use or disclose information about individuals. If the most profitable markets are political parties and intelligence agencies who want to collect the information for good (our guys) or ill (their guys) then in the absence of any other influence, companies go into those markets.

<clip>

This highlights the importance of the proactive tools that we are developing, like user submitted terms & UMA, along with the consent receipt for accountability.