Law

I looked for every health data system that shares features with my Medical Snapshot proposal , something I’ve been working on since 2007. Such programmes medically measure people over time, store what they find, and don’t necessarily tell the individuals what their own data says. This article is what I learned about 26 systems, spanning nine decades from the Tuskegee Syphilis Study (1932) to Our Future Health (2022). What I Measured and Why This analysis is compares existing systems against a hypothetical system, in a way that is exploratory and hand-waving rather than solid science. ...

This is about an Observer-only Medical system, which can be immensely useful to society and governments, hepling understand health and reducing suffering. There are many such systems (I know of at least 26) but they all have a common principle: individuals have their health monitored and are not told the results. So what’s in it for the individual who gives up the right to their own health data? I started thinking about this while working in health systems (the Internet Archive found a version from 2010 ). Over the years since then I have been variously employed in privacy, data sharing/donation, safety in health data movements, causality and risk assessment and my original background of cybersecurity — all of which are combined in observer health systems. When I realised that I have been doing this all along, I made a comparison of 26 existing systems spanning 90 years , complete with a scoring system and graphical analysis. ...

From time to time I am engaged to help organisations in the UK and in the EU make decisions about where their data is stored, how it is accessed, and how to keep things as stable as possible over the next few years. This was a dizzying mess until 2025, and in 2026 there are some big decisions coming. Organisations need as much certainty as they can get for making decisions which are expensive to change in the future. ...

In late 2025 the Rule-based Epidemiology Modellings ↗ began to consider the wider context of their work. On the one hand, the techniques of epidemiology save lives at scale, but on the other, emerging diseases and newer health-related epidemics are accelerating. We asked: ”How can a scholar quickly grasp epidemiology basics?” This resulted in my paper discovering epidemiology . Beginning with what epidemiology is not, we see how disease management saved millions of lives from about 1950. Epidemiology matured through the 20th century but stalled in the early 21st. It became clear that epidemiology was in- sufficient, so political consensus was found to expand the scientific scope to One Health. One Health treats ecology, animals and humans as a system of systems across dozens of science fields, using the language of epidemiology. The newly-refocused World Health Organisation is committed to get 2030 global health goals back on track with a One Health approach, with further millions of lives at stake. Many new One Health scientists and scholars are not epidemiologists, and this paper is for them. ...

Patents and the MIT License Some of my software projects use MIT so I have studied this issue. Although in many respects the world has moved on from copyright wars to much higher-stakes legal shenanigans, the detail of licensing still matters. In my case: My LumoSQL project is based on probably the most-used software, SQLite, whose license states it is in the “Public Domain”. The meaning of this isn’t entirely clear in some cases, and a 21st century software project starting decades after SQLite shouldn’t copy this. I chose MIT as a commonly accepted alternative, but which license is that exactly, and what does the text imply about patents? This is known, but I had to dig. The MIT license is massively used, but who will defend it if needed? We know the answer for the GPL, and also Apache-type licenses. I am now satisfied that quite a lot of enormous organisations really do care about MIT. There are lots of reasons why MIT isn’t ideal, but in my view those are trumped by it being widely accepted as fit for purpose, and relied upon by organisations who care that it remains effective and unambiguous. My notes are mostly kept in my many contributions ↗ to the Wikipedia page on the MIT License ↗ since that is where the decades-old knowledge of the MIT license origins is already maintained. The legal minds in many of the largest companies in the world seem to accept that at least in the US the MIT license implies a patent grant. As probably the most-used open source license, the MIT license has many wealthy corporate defenders if anyone wanted to test that idea.

This file is a Code of Conduct first written in 2020 for the LumoSQL project. Here is Version 1.6 – Updated 9th February, 2026. Heavily adapted and compressed from the large and repetitive version 3.1 of the Mozilla Participation Guidelines and published by LumoSQL under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license. Contents LumoSQL Code of Conduct This file exists because the LumoSQL Project needed it, less than one year after starting in 2019. We take it seriously, and hope that most English-reading adults can understand what is said. We hope this is not needed very often. ...

The detail of the GDPR and its implied computer science contain a solution for sharing secrets according to law. This continues to be true in 2026, as the Digital Omnibus Regulation ↗ takes shape. Executive Summary The GDPR sets up a conflict in trust between companies in particular circumstances, which can only be resolved by using the automation of a cryptographic audit trail with particular properties as described below. Problem Statement ...

When Linux was a Struggling Challenger 💡 Key Point This is a 2026 restoration of my (Dan Shearer’s) 1998-2001 guide, preserved at archive.org ↗ . Links have been updated to point to the archives where possible. In 1999 I joined my first startup, Linuxcare in San Francisco. The Linuxcare story is a quintessential United States dot-com bubble narrative, featuring a famous venture capital fund, massive growth, a failed IPO, and a fancy new ex-IBM CEO resigning under a cloud. Founded in 1998, Linuxcare aimed to be the “0800 number for Linux”. So close! ...

This is the second time ↗ the Court of Justice has decided the same question. In brief, after 4 years, in 2020 the Court was completely satisfied that the United States violates the privacy of EU citizens when the personal data of EU citizens is visible to the US government, and that the US has no intention of changing its behaviour. Therefore, US companies are not permitted to hold the personal data of EU citizens and residents. ...

I participated in many battles directly against Microsoft in the Ballmer era, 1998-2014. Every Samba feature release seem to further anger Microsoft. Copyright and then especially patents were weaponised, as well as well-funded hit teams aimed at spreading confusion and intimidating their own (Microsoft’s!) customers. In the Nadalla era from 2014-present, Microsoft and other tech giants are using even more brutal ways (paracopyright, technical protection measures and the Unitary Patent System), to coerce citizens and governments. ...