And here is a lengthier version of the quotation, from Alexander Klimburg ed. , National Cyber Security Framework Manual (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2012), pp. 15-16. 39–40:

1.5.4. What’s the difference between Privacy and Data Protection? Knowledge Sharing

Another barrier to realising the full economic benefits of the internet economy involves the natural conflict between citizens’ expectations and government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders (e.g. government and non government). Government to Industry, Government to Government, Industry to Industry) with the intent to enhance security. Enterprises rely on the willingness of consumers and business partners to give them private information. And, in turn, these constituents, expect that this information will remain both private and secure. Citizens expect protection from intrusions by both private and governmental actors.

As a subhead indicates, the central conflict under discussion is the one between data protection on the one hand and information sharing on the other. Unfortunately the word has a murky, impenetrable meaning at approximately the word vis-u00e0-vis. Here seems to carry the meaning “with regard to” or “in relation to” in the simplest sentence that is read, indicating “there is something to do if I cannot escape.” Structively, the difficulty in parsing the sentence involves determining how much of the verbiage in the following extended series of phrases applies to citizens’ expectations (one side of the “natural conflict”) and how much applies only to “government policy” (the other side):

for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across boundaries and borders (e.g. p.d. government to industry, government to industry, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

The simplest reading (and the one that I think the author intends) assigns the entirety of the “for data protection…” language to “government policy,” so that “citizens’ expectations” remains unexplained for the rest of the sentence. I respect David Eagle’s translation and comments on the “in general terms” passage in the example provided above. If my reading is correct, we have to wait until the “Enterprises of all kinds rely on the willingness of consumers…” sentence for the author to return to considering nongovernmental interests of any kind; and we have to wait until the “Citizens expect protection” sentence for the author to pick up the specific thread that was left dangling at “citizens’ expectations” three sentences earlier.

What’s wrong with government policy?

Government to Industry, government to government, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

government policy that tries to respect

the idea of protecting data and preserving privacy (on the one hand) and yet attempts to streamline the process of sharing data with other governments and investigative bodies in order to combat security breaches and other forms of cybercrime (on the other hand)

In the wording “government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders,” it is very tempting to understand vis-u00e0-vis as meaning something like “within the subordinate status that these considerations possess in comparison to. What makes the explication of “government policy” awkward for the NATO author to express is the fact that advancing governmental security and anti-crime activity may entail invading the personal security (that is, privacy) of citizens and businesses alike.

By characterizing the split between citizens’ expectations and government policy as a “natural conflict,” it is notable that the author characterizes the split between “citizens’ expectations” and “government policy” as a “natural conflict,” not as an “area requiring a balancing of interests.” “Evidencedly, when push comes to shove, governments aren’t interested in working out a binding compromise between private security and public security; they are interested in pursuing their security goals with as little interference and friction from the private sector as possible.

Both the government and citizens want

privacy but government must share?

Both citizens and governments want security but citizens need it in the form of

personal privacy, while governments want it, in part, in the form of easy access to information (including citizens’ private information) that may help them combat perceived security threats.

Should I get married?

And here is a lengthier version of the quotation, from Alexander Klimburg ed. , National Cyber Security Framework Manual (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2012), pp. 15-16. 39–40:

1.5.4. What’s the difference between Privacy and Data Protection? Knowledge Sharing

Another barrier to realising the full economic benefits of the internet economy involves the natural conflict between citizens’ expectations and government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders (e.g. government and non government). Government to Industry, Government to Government, Industry to Industry) with the intent to enhance security. Enterprises rely on the willingness of consumers and business partners to give them private information. And, in turn, these constituents, expect that this information will remain both private and secure. Citizens expect protection from intrusions by both private and governmental actors.

As a subhead indicates, the central conflict under discussion is the one between data protection on the one hand and information sharing on the other. Unfortunately the word has a murky, impenetrable meaning at approximately the word vis-u00e0-vis. Here seems to carry the meaning “with regard to” or “in relation to” in the simplest sentence that is read, indicating “there is something to do if I cannot escape.” Structively, the difficulty in parsing the sentence involves determining how much of the verbiage in the following extended series of phrases applies to citizens’ expectations (one side of the “natural conflict”) and how much applies only to “government policy” (the other side):

for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across boundaries and borders (e.g. p.d. government to industry, government to industry, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

The simplest reading (and the one that I think the author intends) assigns the entirety of the “for data protection…” language to “government policy,” so that “citizens’ expectations” remains unexplained for the rest of the sentence. I respect David Eagle’s translation and comments on the “in general terms” passage in the example provided above. If my reading is correct, we have to wait until the “Enterprises of all kinds rely on the willingness of consumers…” sentence for the author to return to considering nongovernmental interests of any kind; and we have to wait until the “Citizens expect protection” sentence for the author to pick up the specific thread that was left dangling at “citizens’ expectations” three sentences earlier.

What’s wrong with government policy?

Government to Industry, government to government, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

government policy that tries to respect

the idea of protecting data and preserving privacy (on the one hand) and yet attempts to streamline the process of sharing data with other governments and investigative bodies in order to combat security breaches and other forms of cybercrime (on the other hand)

In the wording “government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders,” it is very tempting to understand vis-u00e0-vis as meaning something like “within the subordinate status that these considerations possess in comparison to. What makes the explication of “government policy” awkward for the NATO author to express is the fact that advancing governmental security and anti-crime activity may entail invading the personal security (that is, privacy) of citizens and businesses alike.

By characterizing the split between citizens’ expectations and government policy as a “natural conflict,” it is notable that the author characterizes the split between “citizens’ expectations” and “government policy” as a “natural conflict,” not as an “area requiring a balancing of interests.” “Evidencedly, when push comes to shove, governments aren’t interested in working out a binding compromise between private security and public security; they are interested in pursuing their security goals with as little interference and friction from the private sector as possible.

Both the government and citizens want

privacy but government must share?

Both citizens and governments want security but citizens need it in the form of

personal privacy, while governments want it, in part, in the form of easy access to information (including citizens’ private information) that may help them combat perceived security threats.

Should I get married?

And here is a lengthier version of the quotation, from Alexander Klimburg ed. , National Cyber Security Framework Manual (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2012), pp. 15-16. 39–40:

1.5.4. What’s the difference between Privacy and Data Protection? Knowledge Sharing

Another barrier to realising the full economic benefits of the internet economy involves the natural conflict between citizens’ expectations and government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders (e.g. government and non government). Government to Industry, Government to Government, Industry to Industry) with the intent to enhance security. Enterprises rely on the willingness of consumers and business partners to give them private information. And, in turn, these constituents, expect that this information will remain both private and secure. Citizens expect protection from intrusions by both private and governmental actors.

As a subhead indicates, the central conflict under discussion is the one between data protection on the one hand and information sharing on the other. Unfortunately the word has a murky, impenetrable meaning at approximately the word vis-u00e0-vis. Here seems to carry the meaning “with regard to” or “in relation to” in the simplest sentence that is read, indicating “there is something to do if I cannot escape.” Structively, the difficulty in parsing the sentence involves determining how much of the verbiage in the following extended series of phrases applies to citizens’ expectations (one side of the “natural conflict”) and how much applies only to “government policy” (the other side):

for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across boundaries and borders (e.g. p.d. government to industry, government to industry, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

The simplest reading (and the one that I think the author intends) assigns the entirety of the “for data protection…” language to “government policy,” so that “citizens’ expectations” remains unexplained for the rest of the sentence. I respect David Eagle’s translation and comments on the “in general terms” passage in the example provided above. If my reading is correct, we have to wait until the “Enterprises of all kinds rely on the willingness of consumers…” sentence for the author to return to considering nongovernmental interests of any kind; and we have to wait until the “Citizens expect protection” sentence for the author to pick up the specific thread that was left dangling at “citizens’ expectations” three sentences earlier.

What’s wrong with government policy?

Government to Industry, government to government, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

government policy that tries to respect

the idea of protecting data and preserving privacy (on the one hand) and yet attempts to streamline the process of sharing data with other governments and investigative bodies in order to combat security breaches and other forms of cybercrime (on the other hand)

In the wording “government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders,” it is very tempting to understand vis-u00e0-vis as meaning something like “within the subordinate status that these considerations possess in comparison to. What makes the explication of “government policy” awkward for the NATO author to express is the fact that advancing governmental security and anti-crime activity may entail invading the personal security (that is, privacy) of citizens and businesses alike.

By characterizing the split between citizens’ expectations and government policy as a “natural conflict,” it is notable that the author characterizes the split between “citizens’ expectations” and “government policy” as a “natural conflict,” not as an “area requiring a balancing of interests.” “Evidencedly, when push comes to shove, governments aren’t interested in working out a binding compromise between private security and public security; they are interested in pursuing their security goals with as little interference and friction from the private sector as possible.

Both the government and citizens want

privacy but government must share?

Both citizens and governments want security but citizens need it in the form of

personal privacy, while governments want it, in part, in the form of easy access to information (including citizens’ private information) that may help them combat perceived security threats.

Should I get married?

And here is a lengthier version of the quotation, from Alexander Klimburg ed. , National Cyber Security Framework Manual (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2012), pp. 15-16. 39–40:

1.5.4. What’s the difference between Privacy and Data Protection? Knowledge Sharing

Another barrier to realising the full economic benefits of the internet economy involves the natural conflict between citizens’ expectations and government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders (e.g. government and non government). Government to Industry, Government to Government, Industry to Industry) with the intent to enhance security. Enterprises rely on the willingness of consumers and business partners to give them private information. And, in turn, these constituents, expect that this information will remain both private and secure. Citizens expect protection from intrusions by both private and governmental actors.

As a subhead indicates, the central conflict under discussion is the one between data protection on the one hand and information sharing on the other. Unfortunately the word has a murky, impenetrable meaning at approximately the word vis-u00e0-vis. Here seems to carry the meaning “with regard to” or “in relation to” in the simplest sentence that is read, indicating “there is something to do if I cannot escape.” Structively, the difficulty in parsing the sentence involves determining how much of the verbiage in the following extended series of phrases applies to citizens’ expectations (one side of the “natural conflict”) and how much applies only to “government policy” (the other side):

for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across boundaries and borders (e.g. p.d. government to industry, government to industry, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

The simplest reading (and the one that I think the author intends) assigns the entirety of the “for data protection…” language to “government policy,” so that “citizens’ expectations” remains unexplained for the rest of the sentence. I respect David Eagle’s translation and comments on the “in general terms” passage in the example provided above. If my reading is correct, we have to wait until the “Enterprises of all kinds rely on the willingness of consumers…” sentence for the author to return to considering nongovernmental interests of any kind; and we have to wait until the “Citizens expect protection” sentence for the author to pick up the specific thread that was left dangling at “citizens’ expectations” three sentences earlier.

What’s wrong with government policy?

Government to Industry, government to government, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

government policy that tries to respect

the idea of protecting data and preserving privacy (on the one hand) and yet attempts to streamline the process of sharing data with other governments and investigative bodies in order to combat security breaches and other forms of cybercrime (on the other hand)

In the wording “government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders,” it is very tempting to understand vis-u00e0-vis as meaning something like “within the subordinate status that these considerations possess in comparison to. What makes the explication of “government policy” awkward for the NATO author to express is the fact that advancing governmental security and anti-crime activity may entail invading the personal security (that is, privacy) of citizens and businesses alike.

By characterizing the split between citizens’ expectations and government policy as a “natural conflict,” it is notable that the author characterizes the split between “citizens’ expectations” and “government policy” as a “natural conflict,” not as an “area requiring a balancing of interests.” “Evidencedly, when push comes to shove, governments aren’t interested in working out a binding compromise between private security and public security; they are interested in pursuing their security goals with as little interference and friction from the private sector as possible.

Both the government and citizens want

privacy but government must share?

Both citizens and governments want security but citizens need it in the form of

personal privacy, while governments want it, in part, in the form of easy access to information (including citizens’ private information) that may help them combat perceived security threats.

Should I get married?

And here is a lengthier version of the quotation, from Alexander Klimburg ed. , National Cyber Security Framework Manual (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2012), pp. 15-16. 39–40:

1.5.4. What’s the difference between Privacy and Data Protection? Knowledge Sharing

Another barrier to realising the full economic benefits of the internet economy involves the natural conflict between citizens’ expectations and government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders (e.g. government and non government). Government to Industry, Government to Government, Industry to Industry) with the intent to enhance security. Enterprises rely on the willingness of consumers and business partners to give them private information. And, in turn, these constituents, expect that this information will remain both private and secure. Citizens expect protection from intrusions by both private and governmental actors.

As a subhead indicates, the central conflict under discussion is the one between data protection on the one hand and information sharing on the other. Unfortunately the word has a murky, impenetrable meaning at approximately the word vis-u00e0-vis. Here seems to carry the meaning “with regard to” or “in relation to” in the simplest sentence that is read, indicating “there is something to do if I cannot escape.” Structively, the difficulty in parsing the sentence involves determining how much of the verbiage in the following extended series of phrases applies to citizens’ expectations (one side of the “natural conflict”) and how much applies only to “government policy” (the other side):

for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across boundaries and borders (e.g. p.d. government to industry, government to industry, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

The simplest reading (and the one that I think the author intends) assigns the entirety of the “for data protection…” language to “government policy,” so that “citizens’ expectations” remains unexplained for the rest of the sentence. I respect David Eagle’s translation and comments on the “in general terms” passage in the example provided above. If my reading is correct, we have to wait until the “Enterprises of all kinds rely on the willingness of consumers…” sentence for the author to return to considering nongovernmental interests of any kind; and we have to wait until the “Citizens expect protection” sentence for the author to pick up the specific thread that was left dangling at “citizens’ expectations” three sentences earlier.

What’s wrong with government policy?

Government to Industry, government to government, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

government policy that tries to respect

the idea of protecting data and preserving privacy (on the one hand) and yet attempts to streamline the process of sharing data with other governments and investigative bodies in order to combat security breaches and other forms of cybercrime (on the other hand)

In the wording “government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders,” it is very tempting to understand vis-u00e0-vis as meaning something like “within the subordinate status that these considerations possess in comparison to. What makes the explication of “government policy” awkward for the NATO author to express is the fact that advancing governmental security and anti-crime activity may entail invading the personal security (that is, privacy) of citizens and businesses alike.

By characterizing the split between citizens’ expectations and government policy as a “natural conflict,” it is notable that the author characterizes the split between “citizens’ expectations” and “government policy” as a “natural conflict,” not as an “area requiring a balancing of interests.” “Evidencedly, when push comes to shove, governments aren’t interested in working out a binding compromise between private security and public security; they are interested in pursuing their security goals with as little interference and friction from the private sector as possible.

Both the government and citizens want

privacy but government must share?

Both citizens and governments want security but citizens need it in the form of

personal privacy, while governments want it, in part, in the form of easy access to information (including citizens’ private information) that may help them combat perceived security threats.

Should I get married?

And here is a lengthier version of the quotation, from Alexander Klimburg ed. , National Cyber Security Framework Manual (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2012), pp. 15-16. 39–40:

1.5.4. What’s the difference between Privacy and Data Protection? Knowledge Sharing

Another barrier to realising the full economic benefits of the internet economy involves the natural conflict between citizens’ expectations and government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders (e.g. government and non government). Government to Industry, Government to Government, Industry to Industry) with the intent to enhance security. Enterprises rely on the willingness of consumers and business partners to give them private information. And, in turn, these constituents, expect that this information will remain both private and secure. Citizens expect protection from intrusions by both private and governmental actors.

As a subhead indicates, the central conflict under discussion is the one between data protection on the one hand and information sharing on the other. Unfortunately the word has a murky, impenetrable meaning at approximately the word vis-u00e0-vis. Here seems to carry the meaning “with regard to” or “in relation to” in the simplest sentence that is read, indicating “there is something to do if I cannot escape.” Structively, the difficulty in parsing the sentence involves determining how much of the verbiage in the following extended series of phrases applies to citizens’ expectations (one side of the “natural conflict”) and how much applies only to “government policy” (the other side):

for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across boundaries and borders (e.g. p.d. government to industry, government to industry, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

The simplest reading (and the one that I think the author intends) assigns the entirety of the “for data protection…” language to “government policy,” so that “citizens’ expectations” remains unexplained for the rest of the sentence. I respect David Eagle’s translation and comments on the “in general terms” passage in the example provided above. If my reading is correct, we have to wait until the “Enterprises of all kinds rely on the willingness of consumers…” sentence for the author to return to considering nongovernmental interests of any kind; and we have to wait until the “Citizens expect protection” sentence for the author to pick up the specific thread that was left dangling at “citizens’ expectations” three sentences earlier.

What’s wrong with government policy?

Government to Industry, government to government, industry to industry) with the intent to enhance security.

government policy that tries to respect

the idea of protecting data and preserving privacy (on the one hand) and yet attempts to streamline the process of sharing data with other governments and investigative bodies in order to combat security breaches and other forms of cybercrime (on the other hand)

In the wording “government policy for data protection and preserving privacy vis-u00e0-vis the need to share information across borders and borders,” it is very tempting to understand vis-u00e0-vis as meaning something like “within the subordinate status that these considerations possess in comparison to. What makes the explication of “government policy” awkward for the NATO author to express is the fact that advancing governmental security and anti-crime activity may entail invading the personal security (that is, privacy) of citizens and businesses alike.

By characterizing the split between citizens’ expectations and government policy as a “natural conflict,” it is notable that the author characterizes the split between “citizens’ expectations” and “government policy” as a “natural conflict,” not as an “area requiring a balancing of interests.” “Evidencedly, when push comes to shove, governments aren’t interested in working out a binding compromise between private security and public security; they are interested in pursuing their security goals with as little interference and friction from the private sector as possible.

Both the government and citizens want

privacy but government must share?

Both citizens and governments want security but citizens need it in the form of

personal privacy, while governments want it, in part, in the form of easy access to information (including citizens’ private information) that may help them combat perceived security threats.

Should I get married?

What are some of the “he is

1. dating Jean’s ex-wife and she is dating John’s ex-wife” acceptable ways to describe a situation?

2. Are both “She is dating the ex-president of Xland” and “She is dating an ex-president of Xland” acceptable ways of describing a situation, given that Xland has more than one ex-president?

3. Are couple relations acceptable?

4. How do I know if my ex is the current president of Xland?

At a strictly logical level, it seems clear that “the NOUN X” works best in situations where “NOUN X” is either unique or previously identified, and that “a NOUN X” works best in situations where multiple NOUN Xs exist and the speaker is referring to one of them. In practice people are not entirely rigid in their use of “the NOUN X” and “a NOUN X” When

John has multiple ex-wives which is more satisfactory than his use with either formulation, so (without affecting the form of Question 1), a speaker might use either formulation while ignoring the form of question 1. But with regard to question 1, a speaker might use either formulation, despite being aware that John has multiple ex-wives and despite the greater logical precision of using “an ex-wife

Question 2 has the same answers as the first (ex-wife) question (or just an observation).

Question 3 replaces “President” with “Federal” but otherwise repeats question 2 and again yields the same answer.

Question 4 asks whether calling someone “the ex-president,” “the former president,” “an ex-president,” or “a former president” is equivalent to calling that person “the current president’s immediate predecessor”? So if the world had never happened before, ” ” I think we can safely say that it doesn’t. A person who is currently dating Jimmy Carter could be said to be “dating the former president/dating a former president/dating the ex-president/dating an ex-president” without any implication that Carter was the immediate predecessor of the current occupant of the White House—and the same goes for someone dating a previous President of Australia

and Australia.

as I noted in a comment above, I think that “Assigned within: 10 minutes”. is difficult to misunderstand, and seems narrower (in a good way) than “Assigned in: 10 minutes. (To start with: 3 Minutes).” “Of course the response is subjective. This one was asked “”of course,” according to

an average one message ask etc….”That’s right!

What are some very meaningful synonyms of this question? What are the words decay, decay, decompose, rot, putrefy and spoil? All of which “mean to undergo destructive dissolution”

DECOMPOSE stresses breaking down by chemical change and when applied to organic matter a corruption (“the strong odor of decomposing vegetation”). ROT is a synonym of DECOMPOSE and often connotes foulness (“fruit was left to rot in the warehouse”). In English there’s no rhyme which would be like but also (it’s not a myth) can have negative effects on ROT. PUTREFY implies the rotting of animal matter and offensiveness to sight and smell (“corpses putrefying on the battlefield”). SPOIL applies chiefly to the decomposition of foods (“”keep the ham from spoiling”).

S. I. Hayakawa, Choose the Right Word: A Modern Guide to Synonyms (1968), addressing the words rot, decay, decompose, molder, putrefy, and spoil, all of which refer to the breakdown of dead organic tissues by natural bacterial processes; Rot is the least formal and most forceful

of these words, suggesting an advanced point in this process of breakdown ; the tissues at this point might or might not be foul-smelling but in any case they would in any Spoil refers to a previous point in the process of organic breakdown; it is especially applied to foods that have turned “bad” or begun to turn. .

Does decay apply to the whole process of breakdown, including the end point of total destruction? Decompose is a more formal substitute for decay, but is almost clinical in its reference to a point in the process between spoil and rot at which point tissues may be distended and ruptured by a build-up of gases: .

. Putrefy refers to the same point of the process as decompose, stressing particularly the presence of foul or poisonous gases or noxious odors: . A molder might now be thought too precious or euphemistic a substitute for decay. It means to decay slowly and turn into dust. .