Byline: Greg Cohen, chief revenue & strategy officer,Merchant Warehouse
When news events like the NSA revelations or the Target breach arise, it often becomes clear that we, as both consumers and businesses, don’t have a good grasp on the difference between security and privacy. There is a blurred line that we can’t seem to get our heads around. Because of that, regardless of your political affiliations, it’s important to have an open and honest conversation about where privacy and security differ, where they meet and what we can do to protect both.
I personally think part of the reason for this blurred line is that our digital-first world has changed the way the two words are defined. We share by default now, and it’s not always clear where the content we create and the data we share about ourselves will wind up. It’s also not clear who should be responsible for protecting our data, or who’s at fault when a breach occurs.
So what’s the real difference between security and privacy? We define security as the state of being free from danger or threats. Security is a table-stakes necessity, a prerequesite in order to get people to share information. They need to believe that it will be protected accordingly.
Privacy, on the other hand, is the ability to decide the extent to which your data is shared — how, when and with whom. Online, privacy is eroding quickly. And although consumers often complain about the “creepy” factor of having their data readily accessible to humans and algorithms alike, it’s obviously not creepy enough for us to change our behavior. Consumers will decry invasions of privacy without taking action to change anything, because they derive too much value from the devices, apps and services that erode their privacy.
So you might ask: what about privacy settings, user preferences and Do Not Track programs? In some cases, I think these processes have actually led consumers to believe they have control over what is shared and when. Consumers are largely willing to share their data in exchange for what they want. For example, a recentCisco study found that 52 percent of shoppers are willing to share information with retailers in exchange for a discount. And93 percent of American consumers do not see Amazon and its recommendation algorithms as a privacy threat.
But not all data sharing, even the voluntary kind, is safe. This is where security comes into play, and why it’s important to understand where that blurred line between security and privacy exists.
Take a look at the apps and services we use daily. They’re porous; we give them access to our information — contacts, personal details, location, etc. — in order to make the services better and more personalized. And though this type of information collection usually results in a more positive experience, it can easily cross into “scary” territory. For example, in January,4.6 million Snapchat users’ data was leaked by hackers. This was particularly troubling for people who use the service precisely because of its ostensibly private — and impermanent — nature.
And that’s hardly an isolated incident. In 2013, hackers nabbed 12 million passwords and accessed almost 30 million accounts from tech darlings like Apple, Twitter and LinkedIn.
Yet, in spite of examples like this, many businesses continue to believe that they aren’t at risk for a breach or fraud.
So what can be done? For businesses, the first step is honesty and transparency. For consumers, it’s education. We need to realize that we give up privacy every time we shop, whether online or in stores. Because of this, security processes are critical.
While this may sound dire, all is not lost. If we do a good job of implementing security practices and preserving privacy where it matters, then the positive aspects of sharing our data online and in the real world can be brought to bear for both consumers and businesses. That’s the goal, and now it’s time for us to get to work achieving it.
Exclusive: India woos Tesla with offer of cheaper production costs than China
By Aftab Ahmed and Aditi Shah
NEW DELHI (Reuters) – India is ready to offer incentives to ensure Tesla Inc’s cost of production would be less than in China if the carmaker commits to making its electric vehicles in the south Asian country, transport minister Nitin Gadkari told Reuters.
Gadkari’s pitch comes weeks after billionaire Elon Musk’s Tesla registered a company in India in a step towards entering the country, possibly as soon as mid-2021. Sources familiar with the matter have said Tesla plans to start by importing and selling its Model 3 electric sedan in India.
“Rather than assembling (the cars) in India they should make the entire product in the country by hiring local vendors. Then we can give higher concessions,” Gadkari said in an interview, without giving details of what incentives would be on offer.
“The government will make sure the production cost for Tesla will be the lowest when compared with the world, even China, when they start manufacturing their cars in India. We will assure that,” he said.
India wants to boost local manufacturing of electric vehicles (EVs), batteries and other components to cut costly imports and curb pollution in its major cities.
This comes amid a global race by carmakers to jump-start EV production as countries work towards cutting carbon emissions.
But India faces a big challenge to win a production commitment from Tesla, which did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment about its plans in the country.
India’s fledgling EV market accounted for just 5,000 out of a total 2.4 million cars sold in the country last year as negligible charging infrastructure and the high cost of EVs deterred buyers.
In contrast, China, where Tesla already makes cars, sold 1.25 million new energy passenger vehicles, including EVs, in 2020 out of total sales of 20 million, and accounted for more than a third of Tesla’s global sales.
India also doesn’t have a comprehensive EV policy like China, the world’s biggest auto market, which mandates companies to invest in the sector.
Gadkari said that as well as being a big market, India could be an export hub, especially with about 80% of components for lithium-ion batteries being made locally now.
“I think it’s a win-win situation for Tesla,” Gadkari said, adding he also wanted to engage with Tesla about building an ultra high-speed hyperloop between Delhi and Mumbai.
India is drawing up a production-linked incentive scheme for auto and auto component makers as well as for setting up advanced battery manufacturing units, but the details are yet to be finalised.
Switching to cleaner sources of energy and reducing vehicle pollution are seen as essential for India to meet its Paris Accord climate commitments.
India last year introduced tougher emission rules for carmakers to bring them up to international standards. It is now looking at tightening fuel efficiency rules from April 2022, which industry executives say may compel some automakers to add electric or hybrid vehicles to their portfolios.
Battered by the COVID-19 pandemic, the industry says it needs longer to make the transition.
Gadkari said he was not directly responsible for making the decision on whether to delay, but was confident India would meet its Paris treaty commitments without disrupting economic growth.
“Development and environment will go hand in hand. We will take some time but we will soon reach the international standard norms,” he said.
(Reporting by Aftab Ahmed and Aditi Shah. Editing by Mark Potter)
Is it legal for an employer force an employee to have the COVID vaccine?
By Amanda Hamilton, CEO, National Association of Licensed Paralegals
Can you force your staff to have the vaccine before they return to work? Quite simply, no, not legally!
Despite the claims of some of the anti-vaxxers, there is no law in the UK which requires mandatory vaccination. The Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 devolves powers to Parliament to legislate in order to protect UK Citizens. The law enables Parliament to intervene in an emergency situation, such as the pandemic, and impose lockdowns and restrictions to protect citizens, but it cannot impose mandatory vaccinations.
In other words, there is no power to make vaccinations mandatory. This raises a whole host of issues – from human rights to equality – and balances them against the rights of others to be safe in their workplace. In addition, it raises issues around the possible criminal implications of forcing someone to be vaccinated against their will.
Potential criminal implications: The Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 s20 states that an unlawful wounding would occur if a person were forced to have a vaccination against their will. A wound means ‘a break of the skin’. This statute still remains in force today.
Human Rights and Equality: Compulsory medical treatment or testing is contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights meaning that it is a human right to refuse medical treatment if you wish to do so. Refusing medical treatment could be because of deeply held religious or other beliefs, and this brings into play the Equality Act 2010. This statute states an individual is protected from discrimination from nine possible characteristics including: age, disability, gender re-assignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief and sex.
So, an employer cannot force an employee to be vaccinated. But can that employer dismiss an employee for refusing the vaccine?
Again, simply no. If they did, then it would amount to an unfair dismissal and the employee could justifiably take the employer to an employment tribunal for discrimination. The case would be brought under the Equality Act 2010 in that the claimant’s refusal to be vaccinated is founded on a fundamental belief or on religious grounds. It would of course, be for the claimant to prove that she/he has such beliefs.
And it would be exactly the same if the claimant felt that they were being victimised, because of their belief, to such an extent that they felt that they could not continue being in the employ of the employer, and consequently, resigned. This would amount to constructive dismissal. The result being the same as if the employer had dismissed the employee – an employment tribunal case could ensue for unfair dismissal.
So how on earth can an employer manage such a situation if there is a statutory duty to provide a safe environment for employees in the workplace? The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 places the responsibility on employers to protect the ‘health, safety and welfare’ at work of all employees and includes others on the premises such as temps, contractors and visitors.
This appears to be in contradiction to the premise that it is an individual’s right to refuse the vaccine. The only way to manage this is to impose certain guidelines on employees such as those we are all asked to follow during the current pandemic, e.g. social distancing, mask wearing and sanitising/hand washing etc.
It may also be prudent to find alternative work for the employee until it is safe for them to return. A reasonable solution such as this should be acceptable to an employee. If not, and the employee brings an unfair dismissal case against the employer for constructive dismissal on the basis of discrimination, then a Tribunal, hearing such a case would weigh up the rights of the claimant to refuse the vaccine, with the nature of the work they do, the alternatives offered to them, and how many others would be put at risk, if they were to continue in their role without vaccination. In other words, they would look at the situation and apply a test of reasonability.
Lastly, can an employer insist that their staff tell them whether or not they have been vaccinated?
If you can demonstrate that asking them to be vaccinated is a reasonable management instruction, then asking them for this information will also be reasonable. However, just as you can’t force them to be vaccinated, you also can’t force them to reveal their vaccination status. Again, equality laws will come into play if there is a risk that revealing their vaccination status will result in discrimination within the workplace.
If they do agree to tell you then this will constitute sensitive personal health data and you’ll need to comply with GDPR. The same applies to information about who has not been vaccinated and why.
Generally, the best policy is one of unambiguous communication. Explain why you’d like staff to be vaccinated and why you’d like the information about their status. Give them an opportunity to discuss this privately with you or your HR department, and look at ways to mitigate the risks and offer alternative working options. This way you have done your best to provide the right working environment, have kept staff informed and engaged in the process and ultimately reduced the chances of a successful Tribunal claim.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Amanda Hamilton is Chief Executive of the National Association of Licensed Paralegals (NALP), a non-profit Membership Body and the only Paralegal body that is recognised as an awarding organisation by Ofqual (the regulator of qualifications in England). Through its Centres, accredited recognised professional paralegal qualifications are offered for a career as a paralegal professional.
UK’s Taylor Wimpey sees recovery building in 2021 after good start
By Aby Jose Koilparambil
(Reuters) – Britain’s third-largest homebuilder Taylor Wimpey reported a strong start to the year on Tuesday and forecast a recovery in sales and margins in 2021 after a slump in 2020.
The group also earmarked 125 million pounds ($174 million) for fire safety work on its developments amid a nationwide drive to improve building safety following a deadly tower block fire in London in 2017.
The FTSE 100 firm said it expected to develop fewer affordable homes than usual this year, with a higher proportion of more profitable private homes, which would help improve its operating margin.
Its shares were trading 2.2% higher at 1000 GMT.
“The key news is that they are talking better on the operating margin for 2021, recent trade has been resilient … and all looks in pretty good shape,” said Canaccord Genuity analyst Aynsley Lammin.
Taylor Wimpey said it expected 2021 operating margin to rise to between 18.5% and 19% after it tumbled to 10.8% in 2020 from 19.6% a year earlier.
Britain is expected to extend a tax break on home purchases by three months and unveil a mortgage guarantee scheme in Wednesday’s budget, moves that could bolster the housebuilding sector after Prime Minister Boris Johnson unveiled an exit plan from coronavirus lockdowns.
Taylor Wimpey, which has operations in Britain and Spain, joined rivals Barratt and Persimmon in setting aside funds to meet new fire safety regulations introduced after a deadly fire at London’s Grenfell Tower in 2017.
The group made pretax profit of 264.4 million pounds ($367 million) last year, down 68.4% from a year earlier and just below analysts’ average forecast of 267 million in a company-provided poll. Revenue fell about 37% to 2.79 billion pounds.
It resumed dividend payments, with a final payout of 4.14 pence per share.
($1 = 0.7202 pounds)
(Reporting by Aby Jose Koilparambil in Bengaluru. Editing by Tomasz Janowski and Mark Potter)
Exclusive: India woos Tesla with offer of cheaper production costs than China
By Aftab Ahmed and Aditi Shah NEW DELHI (Reuters) – India is ready to offer incentives to ensure Tesla Inc’s...
Spain’s jobless hit four million for first time in five years as pandemic curbs bite
By Nathan Allen and Belén Carreño MADRID (Reuters) – The number of jobless people in Spain rose above 4 million...
UK gilt issuance to be second-highest on record at almost 250 billion pounds – Reuters poll
By Andy Bruce LONDON (Reuters) – Britain is likely to sell nearly 250 billion pounds ($347 billion) of government bonds...
A rare sight? UK blue chips, sterling rise in tandem
By Joice Alves and Ritvik Carvalho LONDON (Reuters) – A surging pound is failing to hold back Britain’s exporter-heavy blue-chip...
UK banks face savings glut on road to pandemic recovery
By Iain Withers and Lawrence White LONDON (Reuters) – Britain’s big four banks amassed more than 200 billion pounds ($277.52...