Data Privacy and Protections

For the ongoing discussion of data theory and applications, Science News, an organization that reports research of various subjects, released an article called Theoretical computer science provides answers to data privacy problem. For the purpose of this article, concepts related to the handling of data are discussed, and their applications. Specifically, the purposes that relate data to people are recognizable. Science News (2015) said, “Some data may be trivial, but in many cases, data are deeply personal. They can even influence our insurance premiums or the price we pay for a product online.” An example of a working system model with privacy worked with was reported by Science News as researched by a professor of computer science in Harvard University and former director of the Center of Research on Computation and Society, Salil Vadhan (2015). Described as “differential privacy” (2015), this concept protects data with approximations. With this premise, a series of queries may provide an identifiable pattern; a summation may be reckoned. The calculus of this approximation would then be equivalent to an integral that will produce an exact result. Science News reported that this is defended against by good judgment that would be increasing randomization and taking full care in comparing characteristics across queries (2015). This assessment seems vague because what people view as good judgment depends on initial assumptions about reality.

Although rule utilitarianism, for example, is discussed in contemporary times as a serious ethical concept, there is debate about its efficacy. Bo Brinkman and Alton F. Sanders describe rule utilitarianism. Brinkman and Sanders (2013) said, “In rule utilitarianism, we select a set of rules, and each act is evaluated as to whether it conforms to them” (p. 16). In this case, a rule utilitarian approach might be that the supposedly good judgment of differential privacy is people who may have access will have the keys to accurate information retrieval, and people with incorrect keys will get incorrect values returned to them. In the late 20th century AD, Winslett, et al. (1994) supposed a similar proposal. Winslett et al. (1994) said, “We believe that many of the MLS problems can be resolved by directly addressing the question of what an MLS database means, rather than making syntactic adjustments to avoid semantic problems” (p. 627). This proposal essentially asserted that lying is an effective form of confidentiality for cyber security. Although the supposed truth of relative semantics makes sense for the access key holders for secret information in short term, this causes a failure of integrity. For a historical account, the Apostle Paul discussed the Hebrew Bible. Paul (KJV) said, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” (Rom 3:10). This was the view before grace.

As Joachim Biskup showed, lying is not the correct approach. Biskup (2000) said, “The initial belief and the first k-1 answers (lies) would reveal the last secret psi_k.” This is a mathematical statement that reflects a Biblical prophecy. The Son of Man (KJV) said, “Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops” (Lu 12:3). Therefore, when randomizing data for the purpose of producing lies or untrue information for those who seek unauthorized access to data, I think that more secure concepts require something other than this sort of concept because true information will eventually be revealed, though that may be understood as defense in depth with protections being more understood as unapproachable like the image that a security guard for a crucial represents to attackers, defenders, and other vulnerable groups. Similarly, an available mathematical problem that computers would have difficulty solving would serve as a known defense that would be well defensible in contemporary times.


Biskup, J. (2000). For unknown secrecies refusal is better than lying. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 33(1), 1-23. doi:10.1016/S0169-023X(99)00043-9

Brinkman, W. J., & Sanders, A. F. (2013). Ethics in a Computing Culture. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Marianne Winslett, Kenneth Smith, and Xiaolei Qian. 1994. Formal query languages for secure relational databases. ACM Trans. Database Syst. 19, 4 (December 1994), 626-662. DOI=

National Science Foundation. (2015, October 7). Theoretical computer science provides answers to data privacy problem: New tools allow researchers to share and study sensitive data safely by applying ‘differential privacy’. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 25, 2016 from


Nicomachean Ethics Book I: The Good for Man

In the days of Ancient Greece, before Christ walked the earth in the flesh, a philosopher named Aristotle of Cyrene wrote a worked titled Nichomachean Ethics, and this entry is about the first book. The first book, THE GOOD FOR MAN, Aristotle begins with an assumption about all men. Steven M. Cahn and Peter Markie wrote that Aristotle said, “All human activities aim at some good: some goods are subordinate to others” (Cahn, Markie, 2012 p. 124). Aristotle was claiming that every personal and professional action throughout history can be assumed as working towards some end goal from a purpose. This may be interpreted as people having any particular end that is a personal philosophical argument. In the post-modern age, this is called a worldview. After this initial assumption, Aristotle derives an answer. Aristotle said, “The science of the good for man is politics” (p. 124). Further, Robert C. Bartlett asserted his stance about Aristotle. Bartlett said, “And in order to grasp the most important arguments of Aristotle’s “philosophy of human matters”—for example, to understand the ground of the superiority of intellectual to moral virtue—such reflection on happiness proves to be crucial” (Bartlett, 2008). With the words of Aristotle and Bartlett’s analysis, superior mental ability may be surmised as the means for attaining a particular good according to Aristotle.

Before this, the Biblical Scriptures contrasted this assertion. For example, the Book of Micah says, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (NIV, Micah 6:8). This is after the Exodus date asserted by Ralph K. Hawkins. In paraphrasing, Hawkins said, “Both biblical and extrabiblical evidence pointed to a mid-15th century BC date” (Hawkins, 2007). Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton assert an approximate date for Micah. Hill and Walton wrote, “He [Micah] is said to have prophesied during the days of kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. These three kings reigned during the last half of the eighth century BC, and it is a safe assumption that the prophecies would have been recorded at that time” (Hill & Walton, 2009, p. 642). During the time of the divided monarchy of Israel, Micah prophesied that God’s law is a reflection of His intelligence.

Although God is thought of in contemporary times as all knowing, the Hebrew Bible saw him particularly as infinitely wise in contexts of morality that exist in all things, and that is the distinguishing trait that separates Yahweh from all other gods. This may be seen with God’s position of lifting up people out of slavery and making them leaders of the ancient world; God is best noticed in his blessing of the meek. Therefore, Aristotle’s good for man is probably challenged the most in helping those who are meek. In my experience, the political good of a group even if refined from birth is not always moral in the eyes of Christ.


Bartlett, R. C. (2008). Aristotle’s introduction to the problem of happiness: On Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics. American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 677-687. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00336.x

Cahn, S. M., & Markie, P. J. (2012). Ethics: History, Theory, and Contemporary Issues (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.


Hill, A. E., & Walton, J. H. (2009). A survey of the Old Testament (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House.

Learning Languages – Native and Foreign

In 2013, about a year before I enrolled in a computer science program at a post-secondary school a couple years ago, I decided that I would begin learning more about languages. As a computer science major, I may give the impression that these languages are primarily for programming at a glance. Although I learned a few in academic and professional settings, and I continue my academic program, I am referring to spoken dialects such as English and Spanish. During 2013, I began studying Japanese. I learned the basics of hiragana and katakana. However, it was not until I began critically studying the Biblical Scriptures that I found a calling for language study through prayer and action. As a result, I think that I should learn languages for the purpose of collaborating with people from around the world. I understand that English is the language of international business and science, and understanding people in their native tongues may help when sharing ideas within diverse teams.

For a while, I was studying Japanese as mentioned, but I decided that I would learn from professionals or professional software applications. I started with MandarinX MX101: Chinese Language: Learn Basic Mandarin. A couple months into 2016, I completed that program. Here is the course certificate. When I completed that, I felt more equipped for a journey on the path towards understanding other people, more. My current involvement with Mandarin Chinese is Rosetta Stone. I am currently on the final segment of Level 1 with three levels remaining. Besides that, I am learning Spanish with Duolingo. I believe that I may work towards fluency in these languages, and with steady effort, my faith should be rewarded.

The Biblical Scriptures offer insights into the relevance of sharing languages with people. Moses, the traditionally accepted author of the Torah including Genesis, wrote, “The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them” (NIV, Gen 11:6). The LORD spoke of the capacity of mankind when speaking the same language. A possible interpretation of this is accepting that humanity has potential for good or evil with the godliness bestowed to us as those who have the image of God. Having said that, in our new covenant because of Christ’s self-sacrifice, mankind has the right to life together as the church of YHWH. Therefore, I hold the view that learning multiple languages for Christ empowers mankind so that we may build relationships based on holy purposes, and receive the blessings of God. This is instead of the alternative purpose of building on a foundation of haughtiness as Nimrod did.