In 1847, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis made a revolutionary yet simple observation: when doctors washed their hands between patients, mortality rates plummeted. Despite the clear evidence, his peers ridiculed his insistence on hand hygiene. It took decades for the medical community to accept what now seems obvious—that unexamined contaminants could have devastating consequences.

Today, we face a similar paradigm shift in artificial intelligence. Generative AI is transforming business operations, creating enormous potential for personalized service and productivity. However, as organizations embrace these systems, they face a critical truth: Generative AI is only as good as responsibility for the data it’s built on—though in a more nuanced way than one might expect.

Like compost nurturing an apple tree, or a library of autobiographies nurturing a historian, even “messy” data can yield valuable results when properly processed and combined with the right foundational models. The key lies not in obsessing over perfectly pristine inputs, but in understanding how to cultivate and transform our data responsibly.

Just as invisible pathogens could compromise patient health in Semmelweis’s era, hidden data quality issues can corrupt AI outputs, leading to outcomes that erode user trust and increase exposure to costly regulatory risks, known as in integrity breaches.

Inrupt’s security technologist Bruce Schneier has argued that accountability must be embedded into AI systems from the ground up. Without secure foundations and a clear chain of accountability, AI risks amplifying existing vulnerabilities and eroding public trust in technology. These insights echo the need for strong data hygiene practices as the backbone of trustworthy AI systems.

Why Data Hygiene Matters for Generative AI

High-quality AI relies on thoughtful data curation, yet data hygiene is often misunderstood. It’s not about achieving pristine, sanitized datasets—rather, like a well-maintained compost heap that transforms organic matter into rich soil, proper data hygiene is about creating the right conditions for AI to flourish. When data isn’t properly processed and validated, it becomes an Achilles’ heel, introducing biases and inaccuracies that compromise every decision an AI model makes. Schneier’s focus on “security by design” underscores the importance of treating data hygiene as a foundational element of AI development—not just a compliance checkbox.

While organizations bear much of the responsibility for maintaining clean and reliable data, empowering users to take control of their own data introduces an equally critical layer of accuracy and trust. When users store, manage, and validate their data through personal “wallets”—secure, digital spaces governed by the W3C’s Solid standards—data quality improves at its source.

This dual focus on organizational and individual accountability ensures that both enterprises and users contribute to cleaner, more transparent datasets. Schneier’s call for systems that prioritize user agency resonates strongly with this approach, aligning user empowerment with the broader goals of data hygiene in AI.

Navigating Regulatory Compliance with the DSA and DMA Standards

With European regulations like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), expectations for AI data management have heightened. These regulations emphasize transparency, accountability, and user rights, aiming to prevent data misuse and improve oversight. To comply, companies must adopt data hygiene strategies that go beyond basic checklists.

As Schneier pointed out, transparency without robust security measures is insufficient. Organizations need solutions that incorporate encryption, access controls, and explicit consent management to ensure data remains secure, transparent, and traceable. By addressing these regulatory requirements proactively, businesses can not only avoid compliance issues but also position themselves as trusted custodians of user data.

Moving Forward with Responsible Data Practices

Generative AI has tremendous potential, but only when its data foundation is built on trust, integrity, and responsibility. Just as Semmelweis’s hand-washing protocols eventually became medical doctrine, proper data hygiene must become standard practice in AI development. Schneier’s insights remind us that proactive accountability—where security and transparency are integrated into the system itself—is critical for AI systems to thrive.

By adopting tools like Solid, organizations can establish a practical, user-centric approach to managing data responsibly. Now is the time for companies to implement data practices that are not only effective but also ethically grounded, setting a course for AI that respects individuals and upholds the highest standards of integrity.

The future of generative AI lies in its ability to enhance trust, accountability, and innovation simultaneously. As Bruce Schneier and others have emphasized, embedding security and transparency into the very fabric of AI systems is no longer optional—it’s imperative. Businesses that prioritize robust data hygiene practices, empower users with control over their data, and embrace regulations like the DSA and DMA, are not only mitigating risks but also leading the charge towards a more ethical AI landscape.

The stakes are high, but the rewards are even greater. By championing responsible data practices, organizations can harness the transformative power of generative AI while maintaining the trust of their users and the integrity of their operations. The time to act is now—building AI systems on a foundation of well-cultivated data is the key to unlocking AI’s full potential in a way that benefits everyone.

Originally posted on TechRadar.

This 1756 advertisement in a British paper is revealing. Slavery concepts held by the English show that those providing education and presumably other material needs believed they were owed loyalty, completely missing the fundamental human desire for freedom.

Masters were sometimes baffled at their slave’s flight.

Take Squire Walker’s 14-year-old “black Negro boy” who escaped in London on May 31, 1756.

He had fled “without the least provocation,” the squire’s ad in the Public Advertiser read the next day. “Born in his house . . . handsome, strong, and well built . . . christen’d by the Name of Thomas Walk, kept at School to learn to read, write and Cypher, at great expense,” the ad continued. He had even made off with the “Gold-laced Hat that I used to wear.”

Nearly 50 years later, after abolition of slavery was obvious to most of the world (e.g. ending by 1833 for England), a completely tone-deaf advertisement by Andrew Jackson in 1804 America shows notable differences….

Looking at the barbarity of Jackson’s “Stop the Steal” campaign, we can see stark differences from Squire Walker’s 1756 notice. While Walker emphasized the education and care supposedly given to Thomas Walk, Jackson’s advertisement shows no such pretense of benevolence.

As I said before, abolition was writing on the wall by this time. It was ending everywhere. In 1807, America passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, a federal law that would take effect almost immediately. This, instead of ending slavery (as Lincoln famously later pointed out it should have, using his debates with Douglas) led to an industry surrounding rape of American Black women to produce humans as property.

The contrasting approaches in the ads reveal how enslavers in America thus were so incredibly different in the history of slavery, pushing a regression from human relationship with those enslaved towards a rapidly worsening mechanized, industrialized system of human trafficking replete with ethnic cleansing and genocide:

1. While Walker seemed baffled by ingratitude from someone he’d “invested in” through education, Jackson takes a coin-operated transactional approach with rewards for capture without any confusion about why someone would flee being treated so poorly.
2. Jackson’s broader treatment of enslaved people demonstrates this brutal pragmatism. He exploited Black freedmen by falsely promising pay and respect when he needed their military service. After they delivered victory, he denied these promises, stripped them of weapons and rights, and claimed their achievements as his own. This pattern of using American Blacks when convenient and then actively working to diminish their freedoms characterizes Jackson’s approach.
3. Jackson’s declaration of martial law in New Orleans, jailing of critics (including a US District Court Judge), and attempts at press censorship suggest an authoritarian approach that is consistent with his later political tactics.
4. The juxtaposition is particularly telling: Walker’s advertisement reflects a paternalistic delusion where enslavers believed providing education created an obligation of loyalty. Jackson’s advertisement, however, shows no such pretense – just the raw exercise of power and ownership without the veneer of “benefits provided.”
5. While Walker boasted about Thomas Walk’s abilities to read, write and “cypher,” Jackson’s advertisement focuses on physical descriptions and monetary rewards, showing a shift from pretending slavery had mutual benefits to deliberate, unmasked coercion.

Notably, Jackson’s claims of military success in New Orleans were in fact stolen from free Black men who comprised over 50% of the force, in order to build political power that he would then use to strip all American Black rights and horrifically corrupt and expand slavery.

After the 1815 victory at New Orleans, Jackson ordered the valorous American Black troops banned from their own city and commanded enslaved soldiers return to slavery immediately rather than granting the freedom he had promised them if they would do his fighting for him. After riding his stolen valor of false military glory to the presidency, Jackson implemented policies that intensified and expanded American slavery to unprecedented levels of cruelty in human history.

His economic policy to rapidly juice wealth for slave owners at the expense of actual working men was predictably disastrous. Removal of federal deposits from the Bank of the United States and subsequent placement in unregulated state banks fueled rampant speculation, particularly in slave-backed securities and land for cotton plantations. This deliberate financial deregulation, combined with his aggressive expansion of slave territories through militant deportations of ethnic cleansing (forced Native American removal), created the perfect conditions for the market Panic of 1837.

What followed from his ideas of elite wealth generation instead was one of the worst economic depressions in American history to that point. He created a five-year disaster born directly from the intertwined forces of financial recklessness and his commitment to white supremacist fever dreams of unregulated exploitation of Americans (expanding the slave economy).

The catastrophic economic collapse revealed the fundamental instability of Jackson’s whole vision: an America built on territorial conquest, extraction of wealth through human trafficking in the state-sanctioned rape of Black women, and unchecked “coin” speculation using humans as bits of property.

This evolution of a dangerous and deceitful regression in an American President illustrates how, despite abolition movements gaining ground worldwide for the century prior, American slavery became even more cruelly and nakedly exploitative due to men like Andrew Jackson, dropping even an Old-World paternalistic facade of any care at all for humanity.

Andrew Jackson often is associated with threatening to ignore the law, particularly regarding his conflict with the Justice system itself. The most famous instance involves his response to the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia.

The U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, had ruled that the state of Georgia could not impose its laws on the Cherokee Nation and that the Cherokee people were entitled to their lands under federal protection. Sensible, I know.

However, the horribly corrupt and deceitful Jackson, who was a strong proponent of rushed barbaric deportations, reportedly responded to the ruling with the declaration he was above the law.

Although Jackson’s exact diatribe may not be definitively recorded, the essence of his position reflected his unwillingness to abide by a court ruling. Jackson was not inclined to allow a decision he unilaterally disagreed with.

Thus, his administration continued with forced removal of the Cherokee people, known as the Trail of Tears, despite the ruling to halt immediately. The Jackson deportation has since been recognized as mass armed arrest to push non-whites into concentration camps for ethnic cleansing.

…we will get clear of all Indians in Mississippi, and have a white population in their stead.

This incident is emblematic of the tension between Jackson and the judicial branch, where a President simply ignored the Court’s authority. His ignorance caused great suffering, foreshadowing today’s latest challenge in U.S. checks and balances.

Each president is allowed to select their preferred carpet and drapery colors, as well as statues and portraits. On Monday, President Donald Trump brought a portrait of Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, back to the Oval Office.

The White House has said, as if to invoke the racist, immoral ghost of Jackson, it will ignore the Justice system and maybe even try to impeach judges who disagree with Trump.

Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back on President Donald Trump’s escalating rhetoric against the federal judiciary on Tuesday in a highly unusual statement that appeared to be aimed at the president’s call to impeach judges who rule against him. […] Trump is attempting to invoke a 1798 law that allows the federal government to expedite deportations of citizens of a “hostile nation” in times of war or when an enemy attempts an “invasion or predatory incursion” into the United States. […] Roberts’ statement Tuesday was similar to a rebuke the chief justice issued in 2018, when he responded to Trump’s remarks by saying that, “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

The political impeachment threat to judges goes back even earlier to 1804, when Federalist judge Samuel Chase was accused of bias. The US Senate has in total considered only 15 judges for impeachment since the country’s founding. Of those, only eight were found guilty in a US Senate trial, as you can see here:

Judge	Position	Year	Charges	Outcome
John Pickering	District Judge (NH)	1803	Intoxication on the bench, misconduct	Convicted & Removed
Samuel Chase	Supreme Court Justice	1804	Political bias and arbitrary rulings	Acquitted
James H. Peck	District Judge (MO)	1830	Abuse of power	Acquitted
West H. Humphreys	District Judge (TN)	1862	Supporting the Confederacy	Convicted & Removed
Mark W. Delahay	District Judge (KS)	1873	Intoxication on the bench	Resigned before trial
Charles Swayne	District Judge (FL)	1904	Abuse of power, financial impropriety	Acquitted
Robert W. Archbald	Commerce Court	1912	Improper business relationships with litigants	Convicted & Removed
George W. English	District Judge (IL)	1926	Abuse of power	Resigned before trial
Harold Louderback	District Judge (CA)	1932	Favoritism in bankruptcy cases	Acquitted
Halsted L. Ritter	District Judge (FL)	1936	Financial impropriety, practicing law while a judge	Convicted & Removed
Harry E. Claiborne	District Judge (NV)	1986	Tax evasion	Convicted & Removed
Alcee Hastings	District Judge (FL)	1988	Perjury and bribery	Convicted & Removed
Walter Nixon	District Judge (MS)	1989	Perjury before a grand jury	Convicted & Removed
Samuel B. Kent	District Judge (TX)	2009	Sexual assault	Resigned before trial
G. Thomas Porteous	District Judge (LA)	2010	Corruption and perjury	Convicted & Removed