I have a point data layer in AGOL that was created from an excel file. I am wondering if there is a way to effectively obscure the exact locations of the points for the privacy of the data? Are there any tools in AGOL or desktop that would allow us to 1.) keep each individual point in the data set (so aggregation is not an obscuration option) and 2.) obscure the exact location by generalizing the location?
My preference for complete anonymity is to subtract some portion longitude from the input values so that it places the coordinates in the Atlantic Ocean at the same latitudinal band as the input data. This preserves the interpoint spacing but messes with the actual location.
Obscure 1 Pc Free Download
Download File 🔥 https://tiurll.com/2yGc7Y 🔥
Hi Dan, actually I would prefer it to be randomly shuffled to another location (not super far, say within 10 km). Ideally it would still be a vector point location, just not at the actual latitude and longitude where it was GPSed.
Thanks for the response Kelly! We don't necessarily need to maintain the spatial relationships between the data in the same way that public health does for analysis purposes, but it is certainly helpful to keep some amount of data integrity moving forward with the project. And to answer your question, the data is private water well information. When presenting this information in a water management tool to others, we would want to obscure the exact location of private wells.
I usually change the text location that shows up in the map for an observation so that all the observations for a particular park, say, all say the name of the park instead of what Google thinks is an address/county for some, for my own use.
The best way to obscure is to obscure every photo taken on that day at that location, regardless of rarity. If someone needs the coordinates and you can trust them then you can DM or trust them with hidden coordinates.
Obscured locations are downloaded as a point in a random place in the map within a c.25km uncertainty of the true location, it results in some records being sent to the recorder for the wrong county! I have removed all of my obscured locations and replaced them with uncertainties of
It should be possible for the National Biological Network to address this via a project. Observers can join the project and choose to trust the project managers with obscured locations. In this way, the finer-resolution data will be available to NBN, and the public-facing data will remain obscured. This would seem a far better solution than asking people to deliberately downgrade the accuracy of the data. I would have thought that anyone who is willing to alter coordinates would be more than happy to simply sign up for a project - it would mean less work for the observer and better data for the NBN.
I guess that depends on whether it is the thing or the place you are trying to hide. (i.e. is the concern privacy or conservation), and to what degree of uncertainty you want to hide it. At the end of the day data belongs to the producers of that data (as you say, iNat exists for iNat users) people can choose whether to make their data more or less usable for whoever.
I believe it's just a "reversible hash" algorithm that hides the password so it does not have to be stored in plain-text. Yes - I know that "reversible hash" is an oxymoron. I guess it's just a plan old scrambling algorithm technically...
It's not much of a security - being reversible- but it does make a password less obvious at least - and it would be a lot easier to hide it among other data if you were so inclined - and to hide it from casual data-leaks.
rclone expect the passwords to be stored in that way, so if you wanted to manually add a password you'd have to run it through that obscure function before pasting it in. It would be useful if you wanted to programmatically create configs outside of rclone maybe? Can't say I've actually had a need to use it yet.
If that's not a sufficient answer, why don't you specify what you are after?
Usage?
rclone obscure mypersonalpassphrase
output: encrypted password (same format as config file expects)
From the code the only correction I have to make to the above is that it is actually being AES encrypted, just using a hardcoded key. But that is pretty much a technicality. The key takeaway is that it's easy to do one way (rclone obscure) but not trivial to do the other way (you would at minimum need to modify the sourcecode to expose the reveal function).
rclone obscure is just the "encrypt the password" part of the rclone config routine in case you need to do that directly without going through the whole config again.
So it's not security in itself. It's just less trivially obvious from casual observation. Especially if your original key is a a "humanized" passphrase that is easy to parse in ones head. Then you'd rather it be stored as some cryptic nonsense and thus harder to pick up.
It also does give you some level of protection if you are using the password elsewhere (like a lot of users unfortunately do), because it's not obvious what the original passphrase was from looking at the obscured value.
In this episode, Huffington Post reporter Alexander Kaufman traces the recent history of US building codes, a surprisingly compelling and twisty tale of efforts at reform meeting stiff resistance from builders and natural gas companies.
Not many people outside the industry have been paying attention, but over the last five years there has been a struggle playing out behind the scenes over building codes: the basic rules and guidelines that govern how commercial and residential buildings are constructed in the US.
In recent years there have been efforts to update the codes in ways that would encourage efficiency, which aroused opposition from the homebuilder groups, and encourage electrification, which aroused opposition from the natural gas industry. But these battles are taking place behind a haze of rule changes and code committees and other bureaucratic details that obscure their significance.
Yeah. Most of the reporting has been buried in trade journals, but I think this is a really significant climate story and clean energy story. It's an interesting industry story. I just think it's an interesting story, all the sort of Machiavellian to and fro in the background. So I thought I would just have you on to tell this story, share this story with our listeners. So I think by way of starting, maybe just tell us, what the heck are these building standards? Who develops them and what is their legal force?
And we should say just building codes, I mean, it's too obvious to point out, but this is just sort of like minimum requirements, if you're building a building in terms of, like, insulation and wiring, plumbing, things like that,
Everything. How big your pool is supposed to be, how thick your insulation needs to be, what kinds of windows are up to snuff to actually keep you from losing energy. So they began to develop these codes in the early 1990s under the ICC, not to be mistaken, with the International Criminal Court.
Yes. And so the International Code Council puts out these different codes, some for commercial buildings, some for residential buildings. And every three years, they would bring together experts from across the industry, different trade associations, representing utilities, representing home builders, representing appliance manufacturers, with some environmentalists, and with primarily actual government employees, the people who are enforcing these things, the building inspectors, the sustainability officers, the people who are, at the end of the day, tasked with adopting and implementing these very measures.
There are different processes that went into the final vote. There could be some horse trading in the process that would lead to a final vote. But the final, final vote on "this gets in" or "this does not get in" would only come down to the governmental members. And so the industry reps and the environmentalists and the architects would have the ability to negotiate before that final vote and to propose things before that final vote. But the final vote would come down to the government members, and this sort of gave it, again, that kind of democratic legitimacy, because these are representatives of elected governments.
Right. And then once the code was done every three years, then it basically is issued, and state and local governments can choose to adopt it or not. Or adopt some parts of it or not. It is in no way binding. It is something that states and cities can choose to accept or not, correct?
That's correct. So, there was a federal law that passed in 2007 that essentially helped to enshrine the ICC code as part of an overall federal standard, and that kind of raised all boats to the 2009 standard.
Okay, so you have this process where industry reps, et cetera, government employees hash it out, final vote from government employees. They adopt a code. This was the process, 2009 to 2015. And what I take from your reporting is that up through 2019, this was a relatively sleepy process that did not really dramatically tighten codes.
Well, so it really goes back to 2018, which your listeners won't need to be reminded of the big UN IPCC report that came out that year, and a lot of the local legislative reaction to that report where suddenly a lot of these different jurisdictions across the country started realizing, "Okay, we need to do something about climate change. We have to cut emissions." And there isn't that much that a town or a county or even a city as big as New York can do. You don't have jurisdiction over what kinds of power plants are ultimately feeding electricity into the city. 152ee80cbc
download bulk rename utility (64-bit)
download action replay max evo ps2 iso