杭州娱乐地图lydt

Ant’s IPO is a ‘sign of the times’ and ‘not an isolated case’

first_imgI believe the Chinese government stepped in because they realized that they had to regulate these companies, so that they don’t … get too big. Ant operates Alipay, which is one of China’s most popular mobile payment systems. It is also provides everything from wealth management to micro loans, and sells financial technology to enterprises.But the fintech firm’s IPO, which would have been the biggest ever, was pulled at the last minute after Chinese authorities said there were “major issues” with the listing. “As you know, that sector in China has grown by leaps and bounds,” he said. “And now I believe the government is realizing that they cannot let this get out of control, because it’ll jeopardize the entire financial structure.”Changing world of paymentsSpeaking on the same panel, Douglas Flint, chairman of asset manager Standard Life Aberdeen, said the Ant IPO suspension indicated a need for central banks and regulators to have control of financial stability.He highlighted how many of today’s payments, money transmissions and investments had gone online.“While that is good for consumers and good for competition and good for lowering the cost of intermediation, I think that regulators and policymakers are beginning to get nervous given the scale of dominance that could happen,” he said. “I think there’s a financial stability issue that caused the cause the IPO to be pulled back.” The suspension of Ant Group’s initial public offering (IPO) is a sign of the times, according to veteran investor Mark Mobius, who is the founder of Mobius Capital Partners. Ant, an affiliate of Jack Ma’s Alibaba, was all set for a $34.4 billion dual listing in Shanghai and Hong Kong last Thursday.- Advertisement – While China appears to have concerns about some companies getting too big, it is keen to rapidly scale others in different industries.Fiona Frick, CEO of asset manager Unigestion, said on the same panel that China wanted to become “more independent” in certain sectors of tech, naming the semiconductor industry as one example.  Going forward, she said her firm was more positive on emerging markets, especially in Asia, than it was on Europe. “They’ve been managing their Covid crisis much better than us,” she said, adding that she’s particularly positive on tech in these countries.center_img – Advertisement – “The Chinese government is waking up to the fact that they cannot allow these companies that dominate a particular sector and particularly the financial sector,” said Mobius on a virtual panel at CNBC’s East Tech West conference.“I believe the Chinese government stepped in because they realized that they had to regulate these companies, so that they don’t … get too big,” he said, adding that other emerging markets have the same concerns. “A lot of it is related to privacy and other factors.”Asked if he thinks Ant is an isolated case, Mobius said “definitely not” and warned that the Chinese government may look to regulate the technology industry further.- Advertisement – – Advertisement –last_img read more

People

first_imgWould you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week.last_img

UN, Britain to co-host climate summit on December 12

first_imgThe United Nations and Britain said Wednesday they would co-host a global climate summit on December 12, the fifth anniversary of the landmark Paris Agreement.The announcement came days after Chinese President Xi Jinping told the UN that the world’s largest greenhouse gas polluter would peak emissions in 2030 and attempt to go carbon neutral by 2060, a move hailed by environmentalists.”We have champions and solutions all around us, in every city, corporation and country,” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said. “But the climate emergency is fully upon us, and we have no time to waste. The answer to our existential crisis is swift, decisive, scaled up action and solidarity among nations.”Guterres and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson were to address the issue at a climate roundtable meeting on Thursday.Johnson, who will speak via video link, was expected to say: “As the world continues to deal with coronavirus we must look ahead to how we will rebuild, and how we can seize the opportunity to build back better.”The UK will lead by example, keeping the environment on the global agenda and serving as a launch pad for a global green industrial revolution,” he was to say, according to a government statement. The world remains off-track to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, which scientists say is crucial to prevent runaway warming that would leave vast swathes of the planet inhospitable to life.Guterres and Johnson will convene “global leaders… to rally much greater climate action and ambition,” the statement said.National governments will be invited to present more ambitious and high-quality climate plans at the summit, which would involve government leaders, as well as the private sector and civil society.According to the UN, the December 12 summit is intended to increase momentum ahead of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 26) to be held in Glasgow in November 2021.Recent data shows greenhouse gas concentrations reaching record levels, worsening extreme events including unprecedented wildfires, hurricanes, droughts and floods.center_img Topics :last_img read more

Schmidt happy with Jackson display

first_img “He could run but if he’d stayed on he would have done further damage. “It was a massive opportunity for Chris, he’s worked extremely hard to get it. “It’s really disappointing for him to be literally hamstrung. He tried to play through it, but it was determined that it wasn’t something he could play on with.” Until his injury Henry had looked sharp at the breakdown, an area that left Schmidt relatively pleased. Captain on the night Jamie Heaslip, try-scorer Peter O’Mahony and replacement Sean O’Brien backed up Henry’s turnover work too. But Schmidt warned the contact area will be another facet Ireland must sharpen in time for Australia’s visit. He said: “I think we could argue six to eight turnovers were forced by us on the ground. “Others we were able to capitalise on slightly loose play from them, but we can probably still be reasonably pleased with that work.” The 21-year-old Ulster playmaker led Ireland’s line in Saturday’s 40-9 victory over Samoa to open the autumn international series. Jonathan Sexton’s hip-injury absence led to a straight fight between Jackson and Leinster’s Ian Madigan for the number 10 shirt. Schmidt had explained in the build-up how Madigan’s limited club opportunities this term proved a hindrance, with Kiwi Jimmy Gopperth impressing for the province. And after Ireland’s five-try triumph against the Samoans, the new head coach felt vindicated in handing the form club man the back-line reins. “I thought Paddy was really assured,” said Schmidt. “Our kicking out of the hand wasn’t as good as it could have been at times. We’ll have to kick better out of hand across the board against Australia. “But Paddy did marshal everyone really well and it was an assured performance from Paddy. “It’s not easy to come into that mix and control things like that, but I think we saw the evidence of his club form helping him settle.” Hoping for good news this week on openside flanker Chris Henry, Schmidt confirmed the gritty Ulster loose forward suffered a hamstring problem at Dublin’s Aviva Stadium. Schmidt said: “I think Chris may have a slight hamstring tear. Paddy Jackson’s “assured” display further boosts Ireland’s fly-half competition, according to head coach Joe Schmidt. Press Associationlast_img read more

You Cant Opt Out Of Sharing Your Data Even If You Didnt

The Golden State Killer, who terrorized Californians from Sacramento to Orange County over the course of a decade, committed his last known murder in 1986, the same year that DNA profiling was used in a criminal investigation for the first time. In that early case, officers convinced thousands of men to voluntarily turn over blood samples, building a genetic dragnet to search for a killer in their midst. The murderer was eventually identified by his attempts to avoid giving up his DNA. In contrast, suspected Golden State Killer Joseph James DeAngelo, who was apprehended just last week, was found through other people’s DNA — samples taken from the crime scenes were matched to the profiles his distant relatives had uploaded to a publicly accessible genealogy website.You can see the rise of a modern privacy conundrum in the 32 years between the first DNA case and DeAngelo’s arrest. Digital privacy experts say that the way DeAngelo was found has implications reaching far beyond genetics, and the risks of exposure apply to everyone — not just alleged serial killers. We’re used to thinking about privacy breaches as what happens when we give data about ourselves to a third party, and that data is then stolen from or abused by that third party. It’s bad, sure. But we could have prevented it if we’d only made better choices.Increasingly, though, individuals need to worry about another kind of privacy violation. I think of it as a modern tweak on the tragedy of the commons — call it “privacy of the commons.” It’s what happens when one person’s voluntary disclosure of personal information exposes the personal information of others who had no say in the matter. Your choices didn’t cause the breach. Your choices can’t prevent it, either. Welcome to a world where you can’t opt out of sharing, even if you didn’t opt in.Yonatan Zunger, a former Google privacy engineer, noted we’ve known for a long time that one person’s personal information is never just their own to share. It’s the idea behind the old proverb, “Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.” And as far back as the 1960s, said Jennifer Lynch, senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, phone companies could help law enforcement collect a list of all the numbers one phone line called and how long the calls lasted. The phone records may help convict a guilty party, but they also likely call police attention to the phone numbers, identities and habits of people who may not have anything to do with the crime being investigated.But the digital economy has changed things, making the privacy of the commons easier to exploit and creating stronger incentives to do so.“One of the fascinating things we’ve now walked ourselves into is that companies are valued by the market on the basis of how much user data they have,” said Daniel Kahn Gillmor, senior staff technologist with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. A company can run along, not making a cent, but if it has a large user base and reams of private information about those users, then it’s valuable — and can be sold for millions. Companies that collect more data, keep that data, and use it to make connections between users are worth more. Sears, Roebuck and Co. may have been able to infer when you bought a gift from their catalog for a friend who lived in another town, but Amazon has more reason (and more ability) to use that information to build a profile of your friend’s interests.We all saw this in action in the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal. The privacy of the commons is how the 270,000 Facebook users who actually downloaded the “thisisyourdigitallife” app turned into as many as 87 million users whose data ended up in the hands of a political marketing firm. Much of the narrative surrounding that scandal has focused on what individuals should be doing to protect themselves. But that idea that privacy is all about your individual decisions is part of the problem, said Julie Cohen, a technology and law professor at Georgetown University. “There’s a lot of burden being put on individuals to have an understanding and mastery of something that’s so complex that it would be impossible for them to do what they need to do,” she said.Even if you do your searches from a specialized browser, tape over all your webcams and monitor your privacy settings without fail, your personal data has probably still been collected, stored and used in ways you didn’t intend — and don’t even know about.Companies can even build a profile of a person from birth based entirely on data-sharing choices made by others, said Salome Viljoen, a lawyer and fellow with the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. Imagine new parents signing up for a loyalty card at their local pharmacy and then filling all of their child’s prescriptions there. The information collected every time they scan that loyalty card adds up to something like a medical history, which could later be sold to data brokers or combined with data bought from brokers to paint a fuller picture of a person who never consented to any of this.So does that mean that, in addition to locking down our own privacy choices, we need to police the choices of our friends and family? No, said Cohen, Gillmor and Viljoen. In fact, the privacy of the commons means that, in some cases, your data is collected in ways you cannot reasonably prevent, no matter how carefully you or anyone you know behaves.Take, for instance, Equifax, the credit-rating company that lost control of the data of 143 million people last year. Those people weren’t necessarily members of Equifax. Instead, the company collected data from other companies the people chose to do business with, and much of that business was stuff people can’t get by without, like renting or owning a home. Or, alternately, consider Facebook, again. That company has admitted it tracks the online behavior of people who never intentionally engage with it at all, thanks to partnerships with other websites. (Like many sites, FiveThirtyEight has this kind of partnership with Facebook. Our pages talk to the social network in several ways, including through ads and comments, and because of the embedded “Like” button.) If hounding every person you’ve ever cared about into adopting encryption tools like PGP sounded like fun, you’ll love living in a van down by the river with no internet access.1And I hope you’re prepared to buy the van with cash, because if you need credit, the credit check the dealer runs could hand your information to Equifax again.Instead, experts say these examples show that we need to think about online privacy less as a personal issue and more as a systemic one. Our digital commons is set up to encourage companies and governments to violate your privacy. If you live in a swamp and an alligator attacks you, do you blame yourself for being a slow swimmer? Or do you blame the swamp for forcing you to hang out with alligators?There isn’t yet a clear answer for what the U.S. should do. Almost all of our privacy law and policy is framed around the idea of privacy as a personal choice, Cohen said. The result: very little regulation addressing what data can be collected, how it should be protected, or what can be done with it. In some ways, Gillmor said, online privacy is where the environmental movement was back in the 1950s, when lots of big, centralized choices were hurting individuals’ health, and individuals had little power to change that. “I don’t even know if we have had our ‘Silent Spring’ yet,” he said. “Maybe Cambridge Analytica will be our ‘Silent Spring.’” read more