Can UK (or even any EU states) avoid or even stop the onslaught of globalisation and the unintended consequences such as immigration?
I guess one true barometer is time. Like the financial markets (sentiment indicators of the REMAIN voters?), I too reacted negatively (though not making any financial gains from the event!). I can only reflect on the past – the past that brought me to the UK, and more touchingly what brought my grandparents and my parents (immigrants from mainland China to Malaysia) to leave their homeland. I hope my kids (birthplace in England and Scotland) will not have to repeat what their ancestors were forced to do. It certainly wasn’t globalisation that drove my ancestors to seek a new life outside their homeland. Perhaps one day I will dig deeper into humanity in the face of atrocities.

Reflecting on data privacy – a subject that touches on humanity (& touches me) – the Schrems case (2015) as recorded in curia.europa.eu – The Court of Justice declares that the Commission’s US Safe Harbour Decision is invalid - and elsewhere is certainly worth re-visiting in light of Brexit.

How about examining the Schrems case – substituting US for UK and any other variables you can imagine? Any takers from the UK legal scholars and practitioners?

The full news at the European Commission – Press release on the EU data protection reform

Preservation orders and the rules on Electronically Stored Information (ESI) are complex areas for policy makers and also IT folks. Some of these issues I have raised in my article and also briefly during my talk at BCS in November 2011. Both these are available on this page.

Personally I find the term, ESI a confusing term in the context of electronic discovery/disclosure (edisc). In edisc it is not only the digital/electronic information in storage that the rules/laws are addressing. The word ‘stored’ implies storage media/medium/devices and the data in storage is ‘at rest’. Hard to imagine that emails are ESI. In my talk I stated that edisc folks tend to address edisc by talking about discoverable media/medium/devices which is not the case in edisc. So now the proposed FRCP is addressing ‘discoverable information’ instead of just ESI.

This morning I saw a tweet which caught my attention, a twitter I recently added to my @insuredatarisk account. This account is for all ‘stuff’ related to computing stuff. Computing stuff in my vocabulary includes data or cyber risk, processes, agile, computer or information security, people in computing and anything else that ‘bugs’ me to my core or rather anything that ignites my interest in computing. After all I choose to study mathematics and computing and not music (always wanted to play classical guitar) or medicine (which was what my dad wanted!).

Lately I have been reflecting on why I cannot let ‘GO’ of my interests in computing stuff even after spending most of last 10 years exploring other fields like law, dispute resolution and my interests in energy healing and yoga. I guess I will never know why, the same reason as why I choose mathematics and computing as my 1st degree even though I have not done computing in my college subjects. Something ‘bugs’ me then and still manages to continue to ‘bugs’ me now.

I wonder why folks don’t talk about ‘bugs’ anymore, instead they use ‘errors’ like the software update errors that caused and still causing the RBS banking service downtime.  Will there be blogs from computing folks about how such errors can occur? Perhaps not, as such errors are not interesting ‘bugs’ to expose.

I just read this blog - less is exponentially more – and the ‘bugs’ got me to blog today and got me thinking about my effort to consolidate my sites.

For now, I will keep things ‘simple’ until I have figure out a way to simplify my many bugging interests.

A bug for thought – surely RBS has a business continuity or business recovery plan. Mmm…maybe they do have computer recovery planning but can’t execute the plan. Like having an ediscovery/edisclosure plan is simple enough. The buggy bits are in the execution, which ain’t that simple.  Is there a similar ‘Go’ plan to execute that is simple to the core?

More bugs to ponder…

oops my categories have disappeared from this site! More bugs to look into.

CIETAC started the rules revision back in early 2010. During early 2010 I was in CIETAC (as reported in this blog) and had an opportunity to gain valuable insights into the workings of CIETAC, to which I am most grateful to the Director of the International Division. The approach taken on the rules revision was open and thorough via a working group.

As an arbitration institution, established since 1956, CIETAC has vast experience of not only arbitration but also conciliation (or mediation). In the (old) 2005 rules Article 40 allows for the combination of conciliation and arbitration (throughout the arbitration proceeding), a unique feature which the Western world finds rather alien. Alien as the role of a mediator is perceived to be different or separate from an arbitrator, and as such the potential for conflict of interests and/or impartiality issues. The (old) CIETAC rules have served the arbitration community well, and according to CIETAC, 20% to 30% of its annual caseload is resolved through this med-arb process. Furthermore, the new 2012 rules have incorporated additional safeguards (Article 45.8 and 45.10) to strengthen the combination of conciliation and arbitration provision. My guess is that these safeguards are to address and avoid the issues of impartiality, and to prevent a repeat of the case of Gao Haiyan v Keeneye Holdings Limited, whereby a Chinese arbitral award was enforced in Hong Kong after a failed med-arb (due to arbitrator impartiality). Also, Article 45.1 to 45.10 amendments to the old 2005 rules on med-arb are clearer in terms of separation of the role of CIETAC, the parties and the tribunal.

On the subject of ‘service of document’, the new rules have added ‘periods of time’ in Article 8.4 perhaps to clarify the starting (time) or commencement of the arbitration. The efficiency of document (paper intensive) handling and administration as performed by the staff at CIETAC are reflected in the new provision, Article 18 Submissions and Exchange of Arbitration Documents. This is perhaps another unique feature of CIETAC in that document exchange is managed by the Secretariat of CIETAC, unless otherwise agreed by the parties and with the consent of the arbitral tribunal or otherwise decided by the arbitral tribunal (Article 18.2).

For a detailed commentary on the rules changes, Herbert Smith provides a good breakdown.

I will eventually shut down this blogging site and move my blog to my new site www.iadrt.com

Thanks Twitter for keeping my ‘dairy’.

For those of us who create applications (apps) or build systems we do so to meet business needs or to make a living or some other reasons. How we use the data subsequently (created by the apps) is generally not build into the apps. We don’t design apps to limit data generation or to identify data with meta data such that we know every bit of data being created. It is like asking for an app that will track every bit of data being created without the app creating data too. Imagine an app for this and guess what will top the chart for next year end ediscovery survey!

Is it the same as uttering or saying less (e-mail or phone) to convey a message without the message being short circuited or miss-interpreted?

I use applications every day. I create data every day too. I make dumb decision some day. Today I make a decision which is dumb due to lack of data being conveyed.
Dumb apps or dumb data or dumb me?