Data privacy is one of the leading concerns for businesses to ensure confidentiality and preserve trust. Over the last few decades, the digital footprints of our society have shown exceptional growth. But, this digital revolution is striking hard over privacy concerns of individuals. According to Pew Research, 81% of Americans report the potential risk of data collected by companies overshadowing the benefits they receive from those businesses. Data privacy is not a matter only crucial to big companies.

Management by humans can be dismal. "In the old world of cabbing, the drivers were often abused," says James Farrar, director of non-profit organisation Worker Info Exchange (WIE). Drivers would pay the same fee to drive for a taxi company, but receive differing amounts of business. "You'd have so-called'fed' drivers [fed with work] and'starved' drivers, with favoured drivers getting all the nice work," he says, with some dispatchers who allocated work demanding bribes. As a result, many welcomed dispatchers being replaced by algorithms: Farrar recalls cheering this in a session for new Uber drivers.

As Russia's war continues in Ukraine, the Biden White House has been scrambling to use every tool at its disposal in countering, or ideally preempting, Kremlin-backed cyberattacks. But as the physical carnage continues, WIRED took a look at the destructive toll of explosives and how blast trauma really works. Meanwhile, the European Union is working on a massive international facial recognition system that links databases of millions of face photos. Meta commissioned an independent study on the human rights value of end-to-end encryption and possibilities for finally ending the crypto wars. And German and United States law enforcement confiscated $25 million worth of bitcoins and took down the Russian-language dark-web marketplace Hydra, disrupting its criminal money laundering and exchange services in the process.

An NHS Trust broke the law by sharing sensitive patient records with Google's DeepMind division, the UK's data watchdog has ruled. The long-awaited decision falls in line with the conclusion drawn by Dame Fiona Caldicott, the UK's National Data Guardian in May. The pair's agreement "failed to comply" with the Data Protection Act 1998, according to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), because patients weren't informed that their information was being used. The ICO also took issue with the size of the dataset -- 1.6 million partial patient records -- leveraged by DeepMind to test Streams, an app for detecting acute kidney injury. In April 2016, New Scientist revealed that DeepMind and Royal Free London NHS Trust were working together on a medical project. As the ICO notes in its letter to the Trust, their agreement was actually formalised in September 2015, with Royal Free serving as the data controller (owner) and DeepMind as the data processor (partner).