Roy Keane's frustration with developments at Man Utd has finally led to an abrupt parting of the ways. I wonder if Arsene Wenger would have the cheek to sign him to fill the hole left by Patrick Veira until he could find a more permanent replacement?
Since Chelsea have been making a habit for a number of years of stepping in with more money for any player Wenger seems to be interested in and would be unlikely to covet an old Utd cast off, it's an idea...
Friday, November 18, 2005
UK Government attack academic over ID cards
In the course of the second day of the House of Lord's Committee stage debate on the Identity Cards Bill, Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland of Asthal, encouraged by Baroness Corston, attempted to undermine (scroll down to "16 Nov 2005 : Column 1092") the critical London School of Economics report on the scheme, by attacking one of the academics associated with the report, Simon Davies.
Just as a matter of interest, Jean Corston was created a life peer by the UK government in July this year and is is chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. She is an ex Labour MP and Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS). Call me cynical but it is really difficult to believe this little exchange wasn't worked out in advance of the debate:
"Baroness Corston: While my noble friend is finding the appropriate place, perhaps I may comment on something she said earlier. I have been very dismayed at the degree to which noble Lords have referred to a particular report as the "LSE report". It was actually written by a Mr Simon Davies, who works for Privacy International, which is an international organisation that is violently opposed to identity card Bills and has opposed them in many countries. Mr Davies came to a meeting in the other place chaired by me a couple of years ago when the Government first mentioned identity cards.
It is true that Mr Davies is a visiting fellow of the LSE, but that is a different matter. Indeed, the present director of the LSE, Howard Davies, has confirmed that the document itself is not an official corporate document of the LSE. Perhaps we should start calling it the "Davies report".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My noble friend is absolutely right: it is the Davies report. I am perhaps in error in calling it the London School of Economics report. That is how it has been referred to in the debate. It is an inaccurate reference. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the London School of Economics. I will certainly take my noble friend's stricture and from henceforth I will refer to it only as the "Davies report". So we have that clarity."
Baroness Anelay, the Conservatives's shadow home affairs minister in the House of Lords, then points out that given the range of LSE professors associated with the report it is reasonable to call it the "LSE report." But Jean Corston insists she will now continue to label it the "Davies report."
Now let's look at what the LSE Department for Information Systems website says about the LSE ID card research:
"The Identity Project
The Identity Project has published two reports on the Government's Identity card proposals. These reports have been widely discussed in the press and parliament and you can download the reports and link to the press coverage on these page.
The Identity Project has been organised and sponsored by the LSE Department of Information Systems. Two departtment members, Gus Hosein and Simon Davies have co-ordinated the production of the reports and have serviced the advisory committee of 14 LSE professors who guided the report. Dr Edgar Whitley co-ordinated the international team of 60 researchers who contributed to the report."
So the report was created by the LSE Department of Information Systems, 14 other LSE Professors and an international team of 60 researchers. And as for Jean Corston's suggestion that the director of the LSE, Howard Davies, had distanced the institution from the report, let's look at his letter to the Times on the subject in full:
Not much room for government comfort there then. I really don't know whether Simon Davies should be flattered or annoyed at the attention he's getting from the government but the LSE report is certainly a major thorn in their side in the ID card debate.
Just as a matter of interest, Jean Corston was created a life peer by the UK government in July this year and is is chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. She is an ex Labour MP and Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS). Call me cynical but it is really difficult to believe this little exchange wasn't worked out in advance of the debate:
"Baroness Corston: While my noble friend is finding the appropriate place, perhaps I may comment on something she said earlier. I have been very dismayed at the degree to which noble Lords have referred to a particular report as the "LSE report". It was actually written by a Mr Simon Davies, who works for Privacy International, which is an international organisation that is violently opposed to identity card Bills and has opposed them in many countries. Mr Davies came to a meeting in the other place chaired by me a couple of years ago when the Government first mentioned identity cards.
It is true that Mr Davies is a visiting fellow of the LSE, but that is a different matter. Indeed, the present director of the LSE, Howard Davies, has confirmed that the document itself is not an official corporate document of the LSE. Perhaps we should start calling it the "Davies report".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My noble friend is absolutely right: it is the Davies report. I am perhaps in error in calling it the London School of Economics report. That is how it has been referred to in the debate. It is an inaccurate reference. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the London School of Economics. I will certainly take my noble friend's stricture and from henceforth I will refer to it only as the "Davies report". So we have that clarity."
Baroness Anelay, the Conservatives's shadow home affairs minister in the House of Lords, then points out that given the range of LSE professors associated with the report it is reasonable to call it the "LSE report." But Jean Corston insists she will now continue to label it the "Davies report."
Now let's look at what the LSE Department for Information Systems website says about the LSE ID card research:
"The Identity Project
The Identity Project has published two reports on the Government's Identity card proposals. These reports have been widely discussed in the press and parliament and you can download the reports and link to the press coverage on these page.
The Identity Project has been organised and sponsored by the LSE Department of Information Systems. Two departtment members, Gus Hosein and Simon Davies have co-ordinated the production of the reports and have serviced the advisory committee of 14 LSE professors who guided the report. Dr Edgar Whitley co-ordinated the international team of 60 researchers who contributed to the report."
So the report was created by the LSE Department of Information Systems, 14 other LSE Professors and an international team of 60 researchers. And as for Jean Corston's suggestion that the director of the LSE, Howard Davies, had distanced the institution from the report, let's look at his letter to the Times on the subject in full:
From the Director of the LSE
Sir, Over the last six months a team of London School of Economics researchers has mounted a major research project to assess the Government’s Identity Cards Bill and its implications. Sixty people contributed to the work, overseen by a dozen LSE professors.
The report is long (305 pages) and detailed. One conclusion among many is that the Government’s scheme will be more costly than it claims (report, June 28).
Aware of the work, Home Office officials demanded to see advance copies. Before they had been provided, the Home Secretary condemned the cost estimates as “mad”. When it was published, he described the analysis as a “fabrication” and one of the project mentors as “highly partisan”.
Following the media coverage, LSE’s Governing Council reasserted the right of academic researchers to publish and be damned. The report is not, of course, a “corporate” LSE document. It does, however, represent the honest and considered views of a team of experts.
It is unfortunate that, on an issue where the civil liberties concerns are so serious, the Government should have chosen to adopt a bullying approach to critics whose prime motivation was to devise a scheme which might work, at an acceptable cost.
HOWARD DAVIES
Kingsway, London
Not much room for government comfort there then. I really don't know whether Simon Davies should be flattered or annoyed at the attention he's getting from the government but the LSE report is certainly a major thorn in their side in the ID card debate.
Sony drm fiasco good for digital music
Derek Slater has been adding his two cents worth to the fall out from the Sony drm problems.
"DRM proponents often argue that DRM's limitations will never be unacceptably invasive or strict, because consumer desires will never allow it. If one music supplier uses DRM in a way that is too restrictive, another supplier will exploit that opportunity, offering music with less restrictions and drawing consumers away. In sum, the competitive market solves all.
And what do you need to get a competitive, efficient market? Full information. Perfect information and perfectly competitive markets don't exist outside of textbooks, but we'd like to get as close as possible to those goals.
If consumers come away from the Sony debacle deciding to never buy another DRMed CD again, that's the market at work. To the extent this provokes consumers to be more critical when buying any DRMed product, and they reject DRMed products on that basis, that's the market at work...
Sony CD DRM certainly is an extreme example of the harm DRM can do as well as a situation in which people buying DRMed content without fully understanding the restrictions. However, all the major online music services are misleading in the way they advertise their services, obscuring how restrictive their DRM actually is. We should hope that consumers come away from this scandal more critical about DRM in general; if they decide to purchase music from the online music services, they should do so knowing what they're buying.
"DRM proponents often argue that DRM's limitations will never be unacceptably invasive or strict, because consumer desires will never allow it. If one music supplier uses DRM in a way that is too restrictive, another supplier will exploit that opportunity, offering music with less restrictions and drawing consumers away. In sum, the competitive market solves all.
And what do you need to get a competitive, efficient market? Full information. Perfect information and perfectly competitive markets don't exist outside of textbooks, but we'd like to get as close as possible to those goals.
If consumers come away from the Sony debacle deciding to never buy another DRMed CD again, that's the market at work. To the extent this provokes consumers to be more critical when buying any DRMed product, and they reject DRMed products on that basis, that's the market at work...
Sony CD DRM certainly is an extreme example of the harm DRM can do as well as a situation in which people buying DRMed content without fully understanding the restrictions. However, all the major online music services are misleading in the way they advertise their services, obscuring how restrictive their DRM actually is. We should hope that consumers come away from this scandal more critical about DRM in general; if they decide to purchase music from the online music services, they should do so knowing what they're buying.
Property in the knowledge society
David Bollier thinks something's gotta give given the overreaching behaviour of some companies in the name of protecting their property. He picks out the Sony CD drm fiasco as an illustrative case.
"we have a case where a major company unleashed malicious software to secretly colonize millions of computers in an attempt to extend the reach of property-rights enforcement...
In its never-ending quest to lock up its music products, Sony BMG had installed an aggressive type of DRM, or digital rights management system, to prevent people from making more than three copies of their CDs on their computers. This particular piece of DRM included a “Trojan horse,” as it’s called in the trade. The code secretly embedded itself on a user’s Windows operating system and sent messages back to Sony servers. Not only could users not detect the virus, most could not uninstall it without professional help.
Sony BMG estimated that the code was present on 49 different music CDs and five million discs, two million of which had been sold. (Watch out if you bought Celine Dion, Neil Diamond or Van Zant. More at the Sony BMG site.)
Once they got wind of the problem, security experts estimated that at least 568,000 computers had been infected by the bad code, and probably many, many more...
So this is where the zealous defense of “property rights” has come: furtive infiltration of your personal computer with harmful code. Is it any wonder that the music industry and copyright law are facing a legitimacy crisis? They seem to think it’s more dangerous for you to make a few copies of your own, legally purchased CD than it is for them to implant rogue software on your computer without your knowledge."
It's worth repeating that: "They seem to think it’s more dangerous for you to make a few copies of your own, legally purchased CD than it is for them to implant rogue software on your computer without your knowledge."
Panic induces reactive and not necessarily sensible behaviour and ever since the advent of the world wide web, Karlheinz Brandenburg's invention of MP3, and Diamond Multimedia's release of the first digital music player, the Rio, the record labels have been in a state of almost constant panic. DRM is one of the primary results of that panic. It represents the illusory quick technical fix to a fundamental shift in the landscape of their business world.
Hopefully within the next ten years or so the shifting tectonic plates of the information and entertainment industries will settle down and gain some level of stability. If drm were to become one of the casualties of the process, then I'm sure the millions of Sony CD buyers, with virus infected computers, will not be lamenting the extinction of that particular digital species.
Ultimately, unusually for me as a pessimist, I reckon that drm will eventually die out because it's such a lousy idea. But it is one of those superfically attractive ideas to some, that we will probably find it getting resurrected periodically to the extent that future generations will have to suffer various infestations, until it can be beaten back to the edge of extinction again in another cycle.
"we have a case where a major company unleashed malicious software to secretly colonize millions of computers in an attempt to extend the reach of property-rights enforcement...
In its never-ending quest to lock up its music products, Sony BMG had installed an aggressive type of DRM, or digital rights management system, to prevent people from making more than three copies of their CDs on their computers. This particular piece of DRM included a “Trojan horse,” as it’s called in the trade. The code secretly embedded itself on a user’s Windows operating system and sent messages back to Sony servers. Not only could users not detect the virus, most could not uninstall it without professional help.
Sony BMG estimated that the code was present on 49 different music CDs and five million discs, two million of which had been sold. (Watch out if you bought Celine Dion, Neil Diamond or Van Zant. More at the Sony BMG site.)
Once they got wind of the problem, security experts estimated that at least 568,000 computers had been infected by the bad code, and probably many, many more...
So this is where the zealous defense of “property rights” has come: furtive infiltration of your personal computer with harmful code. Is it any wonder that the music industry and copyright law are facing a legitimacy crisis? They seem to think it’s more dangerous for you to make a few copies of your own, legally purchased CD than it is for them to implant rogue software on your computer without your knowledge."
It's worth repeating that: "They seem to think it’s more dangerous for you to make a few copies of your own, legally purchased CD than it is for them to implant rogue software on your computer without your knowledge."
Panic induces reactive and not necessarily sensible behaviour and ever since the advent of the world wide web, Karlheinz Brandenburg's invention of MP3, and Diamond Multimedia's release of the first digital music player, the Rio, the record labels have been in a state of almost constant panic. DRM is one of the primary results of that panic. It represents the illusory quick technical fix to a fundamental shift in the landscape of their business world.
Hopefully within the next ten years or so the shifting tectonic plates of the information and entertainment industries will settle down and gain some level of stability. If drm were to become one of the casualties of the process, then I'm sure the millions of Sony CD buyers, with virus infected computers, will not be lamenting the extinction of that particular digital species.
Ultimately, unusually for me as a pessimist, I reckon that drm will eventually die out because it's such a lousy idea. But it is one of those superfically attractive ideas to some, that we will probably find it getting resurrected periodically to the extent that future generations will have to suffer various infestations, until it can be beaten back to the edge of extinction again in another cycle.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Scambusters on Sony drm hole
Scambusters have a useful article on the Sony CD drm problems, Sony's Rootkit CDs -- And What It Means for You
Sony's apology over drm security hole
Cory is distinctly unimpressed with Sony's non-apology apology after the security problems created by their drm CDs.
Ex MI5 chief critical of ID cards
Dame Stella Rimington, a previous MI5 chief, has said: "I don't think anybody in the intelligence services - not in my former service - will be pressing for ID cards" because they will not make the country any safer. It's not particularly surprising that she believes this. Any competent security professional will tell you the same thing. The government will not be pleased she's prepared to make her views public though.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Does the UK government IT strategy have teeth?
Does the UK government IT strategy have teeth? Mark Say, editor of Government Computing, thinks not.
Tony Blair abolishes elections
This is worryingly close enough to reality to almost not be funny but it still made me grin.
Unauthorised sequels
There was a copyright case in France recently, Pierre Hugo and others v SA Plon and another (Cour d'appel de Paris), on whether Victor Hugo's moral rights were breached by the publication of a couple of unauthorised sequels to Les Miserables.
Even though the specific legal issues were different it reminds me of the case over The Wind Done Gone, when Margaret Mitchell's estate sued Alice Randall and her publishers over the publication of her first novel, a parody of Gone with the Wind, written from the perspective of Scarlett O'Hara's half-sister Cynara, a slave on Scarlett's plantation. The estate managed to get an injunction preventing the publication initially but the case was eventually settled out of court and the book was published in 2002.
Even though the specific legal issues were different it reminds me of the case over The Wind Done Gone, when Margaret Mitchell's estate sued Alice Randall and her publishers over the publication of her first novel, a parody of Gone with the Wind, written from the perspective of Scarlett O'Hara's half-sister Cynara, a slave on Scarlett's plantation. The estate managed to get an injunction preventing the publication initially but the case was eventually settled out of court and the book was published in 2002.
Open Rights Group open invite
The new UK Open Rights Group have issued an invitation "to an evening of digital rights discussion, networking and wine at 01Zero-One Hopkins Street on Tuesday 29 November at 6pm"
The guest speaker is Jonathan Zittrain.
The guest speaker is Jonathan Zittrain.
IFPI sue 2100
The International Federation for the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) are suing another 2100 individuals (in civil and criminal cases) all over the world for alleged copyright infringement via p2p file sharing.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
John Battelle's common sense advice
John Battelle has provided the MacArthur Foundation, at their request, with a sensible suggestion for a philanthropic investment.
"In an age where the knowledge of mankind is increasingly at our fingertips through the services of Internet search, we must teach our children critical thinking. One can never have all the answers, but if prepared, one can always ask the right question, and from that creative act, learn to find his or her own answer.
Instead, we have leaders that believe that questions have one answer, and they already know what it is. Their mission, then, is to evangelize that answer. That, to me, is a dangerous course. Reversing it by teaching our children to learn, rather than to answer, seems to me to be a noble cause.
I then later added:
Developing a framework in our schools for "search literacy" - how to use and think about using a search engine - might be just the kind of thing you could do with a modest investment...."
"In an age where the knowledge of mankind is increasingly at our fingertips through the services of Internet search, we must teach our children critical thinking. One can never have all the answers, but if prepared, one can always ask the right question, and from that creative act, learn to find his or her own answer.
Instead, we have leaders that believe that questions have one answer, and they already know what it is. Their mission, then, is to evangelize that answer. That, to me, is a dangerous course. Reversing it by teaching our children to learn, rather than to answer, seems to me to be a noble cause.
I then later added:
Developing a framework in our schools for "search literacy" - how to use and think about using a search engine - might be just the kind of thing you could do with a modest investment...."
RFID chips in passports
Bruce Schneier offers praise, in his latest Crypto-Gram for State Department officials who have responded sensibly and responsibly to two specific criticisms of the proposal to put RFID chips in US passports. He still has serious concerns about the plan, however:
"RFID passports will now include a thin radio shield in their
covers, protecting the chips when the passports are closed. Although
some have derided this as a tinfoil hat for passports, the fact is the
measure will prevent the documents from being snooped when closed.
However, anyone who travels knows that passports are used for more than
border crossings. You often have to show your passport at hotels and
airports, and while changing money. More and more it's an identity
card; new Italian regulations require foreigners to show their
passports when using an Internet cafe.
Because of this, the State Department added a second, and
more-important, feature: access control. The data on the chip will be
encrypted, and the key is printed on the passport. A customs officer
swipes the passport through an optical reader to get the key, and then
the RFID reader uses the key to communicate with the RFID chip.
This means that the passport holder can control who gets access to the
information on the chip, and someone cannot skim information from the
passport without first opening it up and reading the information
inside. This also means that a third party can't eavesdrop on the
communication between the card and the reader, because it's encrypted.
By any measure, these features are exemplary, and should serve as a
role model for any RFID identity-document applications. Unfortunately,
there's still a problem.
RFID chips, including the ones specified for U.S. passports, can still be uniquely identified by their radio behavior...
To fix this, the State Department needs to require that the chips used in passports implement a collision-avoidance system not based on unique serial numbers...
The State Department has done a great job addressing specific security and privacy concerns, but its lack of technical skills is hurting it. The collision-avoidance ID issue is just one example of where, apparently, the State Department didn't have enough of the expertise it needed to do this right.
Of course it can fix the problem, but the real issue is how many other problems like this are lurking in the details of its design? We don't know, and I doubt the State Department knows, either. The only way to vet its design, and to convince us that RFID is necessary, would be to open it up to public scrutiny...
Right now the State Department has no intention of doing that; it's already committed to a scheme before knowing if it even works or if it protects privacy."
"RFID passports will now include a thin radio shield in their
covers, protecting the chips when the passports are closed. Although
some have derided this as a tinfoil hat for passports, the fact is the
measure will prevent the documents from being snooped when closed.
However, anyone who travels knows that passports are used for more than
border crossings. You often have to show your passport at hotels and
airports, and while changing money. More and more it's an identity
card; new Italian regulations require foreigners to show their
passports when using an Internet cafe.
Because of this, the State Department added a second, and
more-important, feature: access control. The data on the chip will be
encrypted, and the key is printed on the passport. A customs officer
swipes the passport through an optical reader to get the key, and then
the RFID reader uses the key to communicate with the RFID chip.
This means that the passport holder can control who gets access to the
information on the chip, and someone cannot skim information from the
passport without first opening it up and reading the information
inside. This also means that a third party can't eavesdrop on the
communication between the card and the reader, because it's encrypted.
By any measure, these features are exemplary, and should serve as a
role model for any RFID identity-document applications. Unfortunately,
there's still a problem.
RFID chips, including the ones specified for U.S. passports, can still be uniquely identified by their radio behavior...
To fix this, the State Department needs to require that the chips used in passports implement a collision-avoidance system not based on unique serial numbers...
The State Department has done a great job addressing specific security and privacy concerns, but its lack of technical skills is hurting it. The collision-avoidance ID issue is just one example of where, apparently, the State Department didn't have enough of the expertise it needed to do this right.
Of course it can fix the problem, but the real issue is how many other problems like this are lurking in the details of its design? We don't know, and I doubt the State Department knows, either. The only way to vet its design, and to convince us that RFID is necessary, would be to open it up to public scrutiny...
Right now the State Department has no intention of doing that; it's already committed to a scheme before knowing if it even works or if it protects privacy."
UK firm to test Irish e-voting system
I missed this when it was published in April in the Irish Times. The Irish Commission on Electronic Voting has commissioned QinetiQ, which was the national defence laboratory of the UK Ministry of Defence prior to being privatised, to review the country's electronic voting system.
The UK government continue to hold a 56% share of the company. The remainder of the shares are owned by company employees and the Carlyle Group. Why choose a company whose major shareholder is a foreign, albeit friendly, government to audit your voting system? It would be fascinating to review the decision processes involved. I wonder how many Irish consultancy companies bid for the contract?
The UK government continue to hold a 56% share of the company. The remainder of the shares are owned by company employees and the Carlyle Group. Why choose a company whose major shareholder is a foreign, albeit friendly, government to audit your voting system? It would be fascinating to review the decision processes involved. I wonder how many Irish consultancy companies bid for the contract?
Monday, November 14, 2005
Thinking traps
With ID cards and their data retention proposals and many others related to the information society, the UK government has been acting deliberately not only against the interests of the nation but against their own interests. As soon as the real life affects of these policies start hitting people (e.g. the £500 cost of an ID card) Tony Blair and co are going to be on the receiving end of general public disgruntlement, probably sufficient to vote them out of office. So why in the face of sensible, clear minded exposition of the real problems of these ideas, by folks like those at the LSE, do decision makers persist with wrong-headed and completely counter-productive policies?
John's right when he says prime ministers exist inside a bubble which insulates them from reality. But acting, demonstrably against reason and even enlightened self interest, according to an absolute, pre-conceived, unshakable belief in the rightness of some scheme like ID cards, has got to reflect more than sheer folly and the desire to "act" and be seen to be acting (in the absence of any serious diagnosis of the complex problems allegedly targetted)?
The thinking trap is certainly one contributory explanation. Geoffrey Vickers described it thus:
He goes on to note that we can only start to climb out of our self made thinking traps when we recognise that we are in a trap and start questioning our own limitations and the assumptions that led us there.
The government trap in this instance is their focus on selling the rightness (or righteousness) of their solutions, whilst wholly avoiding addressing the complexity of the underlying problems.
And the solutions are neat, simple (or certainly sold as such, even though they are anything but simple) and wrong.
John's right when he says prime ministers exist inside a bubble which insulates them from reality. But acting, demonstrably against reason and even enlightened self interest, according to an absolute, pre-conceived, unshakable belief in the rightness of some scheme like ID cards, has got to reflect more than sheer folly and the desire to "act" and be seen to be acting (in the absence of any serious diagnosis of the complex problems allegedly targetted)?
The thinking trap is certainly one contributory explanation. Geoffrey Vickers described it thus:
Lobster pots are designed to catch lobsters. A man entering a lobster pot would become suspicious of the narrowing tunnel, he would shrink from the drop at the end; and if he fell in he would recognise the entrance as a possible exit and climb out again – even if he were the shape of a lobster.
A trap is a trap only for creatures who cannot solve the problem it sets. Man traps are dangerous only in relation to the limitations of what men can see and value and do. The nature of the trap is a function of the nature of the trapped...
We the trapped tend to take our own state of mind for granted – which is partly why we are trapped.
He goes on to note that we can only start to climb out of our self made thinking traps when we recognise that we are in a trap and start questioning our own limitations and the assumptions that led us there.
The government trap in this instance is their focus on selling the rightness (or righteousness) of their solutions, whilst wholly avoiding addressing the complexity of the underlying problems.
And the solutions are neat, simple (or certainly sold as such, even though they are anything but simple) and wrong.
US Government Step into Blackberry dispute
The US Justice Department has filed a "statement of interest" in the NTL v RIM patent dispute, saying that if the judge decides to stop the sales of the Blackberry, "it is imperative that some mechanism be incorporated that permits continuity of the federal government's use of BlackBerry devices." A jury decided a couple of years ago that RIM's Blackberry did infringe on NTL's patents. The two companies were then reported as having agreed a settlement whereby RIM would pay NTL £450 million. They are now in dispute about whether there was an agreement or not. If the judge decides there was no agreement he could issue an injunction against the sales in the next few weeks.
NTL has rejected any notion that government personnel would be affected by such an injunction.
NTL has rejected any notion that government personnel would be affected by such an injunction.
Dodgy Dossier mark II
Ian Brown points to a couple of interesting articles in the Times on Tony Blair's Dodgy Dossier mark II. Not Mr Blair's biggest fans. Simon Jenkins is particularly scathing:
"The Andy Hayman 90-day dossier was treated by Blair with the same biblical reverence that he once showered on Alastair Campbell’s notorious variations on a 45-minute theme.
By Wednesday the prime minister appeared to believe that only 90-day detention stood between Britain and the imminent arrival of Hitler’s storm troops. Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said it would be “obscene” not to go for 90 days in the immediate aftermath of the July 7 memorial service, lending weight to the suspicion that the St Paul’s event had been politically orchestrated. "
"The Andy Hayman 90-day dossier was treated by Blair with the same biblical reverence that he once showered on Alastair Campbell’s notorious variations on a 45-minute theme.
By Wednesday the prime minister appeared to believe that only 90-day detention stood between Britain and the imminent arrival of Hitler’s storm troops. Charles Clarke, the home secretary, said it would be “obscene” not to go for 90 days in the immediate aftermath of the July 7 memorial service, lending weight to the suspicion that the St Paul’s event had been politically orchestrated. "
Spy Blog on ANPR cameras and data retention
From Spy Blog,
If the Sunday Times is to be believed , a newspaper which has proven itself to be entirely capable of misinterpreting any new technology, the latest NuLabour Police "total surveillance" fantasy involves even more spy cameras on our road network than the thousands of them which are already in place. The article (which like many of their dubvious technoligy feature articles is illustrated by an artist's impression) includes this alarming claim::
This is so unacceptable as to beggar belief.
There is no, repeat, no justification for retaining the ANPR processed license plate, location, time and date records of millions of innocent motorists for two minutes, let alone 2 years !
The Sunday Times article referred to is here.
If the Sunday Times is to be believed , a newspaper which has proven itself to be entirely capable of misinterpreting any new technology, the latest NuLabour Police "total surveillance" fantasy involves even more spy cameras on our road network than the thousands of them which are already in place. The article (which like many of their dubvious technoligy feature articles is illustrated by an artist's impression) includes this alarming claim::
Details of any vehicle passing a camera will be stored in a database for at least two years — even if the owner has not committed an offence
This is so unacceptable as to beggar belief.
There is no, repeat, no justification for retaining the ANPR processed license plate, location, time and date records of millions of innocent motorists for two minutes, let alone 2 years !
The Sunday Times article referred to is here.
Not a consumer
Mary Hodder has emphasised again her distaste for the "consumer" label.
"We are not creating our own media, writing blogs (Intelliseek owns Blogpulse, a blog search product), in some cases creating our own products, as 'consumers.' We are *users* with a proactive capital U.
Users are people who go out, find stuff they like, publish, remix and create a new. They are smart, they are proactive. They don't take being marketed to, but would rather either discover or get more real information from people they trust. Users have been operating digitally since the advent of the internet.
Consumers are those whose mouths are wide open, pointed toward the sky, so they can't see what's going on, like baby birds, helpless and clueless and waiting to be marketed to, while information or products are spoon-fed to them by marketers. Consumers are so 1980's.
It's Users. Get your ticket now on the cluetrain. If you keep talking about consumers, the users will pass you by as they take control of their own media, product interests and activities."
Kevin Marks thinks it should be neither "consumers" nor "users" but "amateurs"
"We are not creating our own media, writing blogs (Intelliseek owns Blogpulse, a blog search product), in some cases creating our own products, as 'consumers.' We are *users* with a proactive capital U.
Users are people who go out, find stuff they like, publish, remix and create a new. They are smart, they are proactive. They don't take being marketed to, but would rather either discover or get more real information from people they trust. Users have been operating digitally since the advent of the internet.
Consumers are those whose mouths are wide open, pointed toward the sky, so they can't see what's going on, like baby birds, helpless and clueless and waiting to be marketed to, while information or products are spoon-fed to them by marketers. Consumers are so 1980's.
It's Users. Get your ticket now on the cluetrain. If you keep talking about consumers, the users will pass you by as they take control of their own media, product interests and activities."
Kevin Marks thinks it should be neither "consumers" nor "users" but "amateurs"
Lessig on bipolar debate on Google Print
Larry Lessig has been criticising one of his critics, James DeLong, who he accuses of mischaracterising what he (Lessig) has been saying about the copyfight in the context of the Google Print dispute.
James DeLong says:
"In a recent blog about Google Print, Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig repeats a story that is also at the center of his book Free Culture. He cites the 1946 airplane noise case of U.S. v. Causby as clearing the way for the air age by overthrowing the old legal doctrine that a landowner’s property extends to the heavens, thus making the airspace into a commons. He then draws an analogy to Google Print, arguing that the old copyright regime must be similarly overthrown in the name of the new commons of the Internet Age. Unfortunately, his depiction misstates the issues in Causby, ignores the fact that the landowner actually won, and fails to mention that the case stands for close to the opposite of the principles for which he cites it."
Lessig responds:
My use of the story — in both contexts — is perfectly apt, and correct. Here’s the passage I quoted from the case in the book, and referred to in the blog post:
It is ancient doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe - Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum. But that doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim. 328 U.S. at 261.
The use I’ve made of this paragraph is simply to remark an old property rule (that property extended to the “periphery of the universe”) that modern “common sense” changed (by making the “air a public highway”). What might have made sense with one technology (a world without airplanes) no longer makes sense with another technology (airplanes) and so society thus faces a choice: respect the ancient doctrines despite the consequence for progress (by which I mean the ordinary meaning of “progress” and not the very different meaning intended in the title, “Progress & Freedom Foundation”), or let “common sense” revolt against that regressive idea. The case recognized, and respected, the revolt. The law of property does not extend to the “periphery of the universe.”...
I think Google has a “fair use” right to build an index to books. (See a careful account of this by Bill Patry.) I don’t think Google has the right to scan copyrighted books from a library and serve full copies of those books to anyone in the world. That is, I distinguish between some rights, and all rights.
The Causby case matches that distinction precisely:
(1) The law gives copyright owners an exclusive right to “copy.” That’s the equivalent of the law giving land owners rights to the “periphery of the universe.”
(2) A new technology (digital networks; airplanes) now renders absurd respecting that exclusive right as it was before that technology.
(3) The proper response is for commons sense to “revolt” against the extreme claim (that the publishers get to control every copy, even one to simply produce an index; that the rights to land extend to the “periphery of the universe”)
(4) Revolting against the extreme claim does not entail abolishing all rights absolutely. The Causby’s can complain about planes flying within the “immediate reaches” of the ground. The authors and publishers should be able to complain about, e.g., someone who scanned and made full copies of a copyrighted book available online.
But there is one great and true part to DeLong’s email. As he writes,
Causby was entitled only to the decline in his property value, not to a share of the gains from the air age.
Truly, if there is a principle here, that should be it. The baseline is the value of the property BEFORE the new technology. Does the new technology reduce THAT value. Put differently, would authors and publishers be worse off with Google Print than they were before Google Print?"
They'll probably be better off, as long as Google doesn't tune the search engine to favour some authors/publishers over others, though there are other issues such as the hacking mentioned by Doug Lichtman in the comments; and the devil on the issues will, as usual, be in the detail. It seems fairly clear, however, that the lawsuits at the moment are primarily about derviving a share of Google's revenues from Google Print. Whether you would characterise this, as Larry does, as an attempt by the publishers and Authors Guild "to tax the value created by Google Print" is another question.
James DeLong says:
"In a recent blog about Google Print, Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig repeats a story that is also at the center of his book Free Culture. He cites the 1946 airplane noise case of U.S. v. Causby as clearing the way for the air age by overthrowing the old legal doctrine that a landowner’s property extends to the heavens, thus making the airspace into a commons. He then draws an analogy to Google Print, arguing that the old copyright regime must be similarly overthrown in the name of the new commons of the Internet Age. Unfortunately, his depiction misstates the issues in Causby, ignores the fact that the landowner actually won, and fails to mention that the case stands for close to the opposite of the principles for which he cites it."
Lessig responds:
My use of the story — in both contexts — is perfectly apt, and correct. Here’s the passage I quoted from the case in the book, and referred to in the blog post:
It is ancient doctrine that at common law ownership of the land extended to the periphery of the universe - Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum. But that doctrine has no place in the modern world. The air is a public highway, as Congress has declared. Were that not true, every transcontinental flight would subject the operator to countless trespass suits. Common sense revolts at the idea. To recognize such private claims to the airspace would clog these highways, seriously interfere with their control and development in the public interest, and transfer into private ownership that to which only the public has a just claim. 328 U.S. at 261.
The use I’ve made of this paragraph is simply to remark an old property rule (that property extended to the “periphery of the universe”) that modern “common sense” changed (by making the “air a public highway”). What might have made sense with one technology (a world without airplanes) no longer makes sense with another technology (airplanes) and so society thus faces a choice: respect the ancient doctrines despite the consequence for progress (by which I mean the ordinary meaning of “progress” and not the very different meaning intended in the title, “Progress & Freedom Foundation”), or let “common sense” revolt against that regressive idea. The case recognized, and respected, the revolt. The law of property does not extend to the “periphery of the universe.”...
I think Google has a “fair use” right to build an index to books. (See a careful account of this by Bill Patry.) I don’t think Google has the right to scan copyrighted books from a library and serve full copies of those books to anyone in the world. That is, I distinguish between some rights, and all rights.
The Causby case matches that distinction precisely:
(1) The law gives copyright owners an exclusive right to “copy.” That’s the equivalent of the law giving land owners rights to the “periphery of the universe.”
(2) A new technology (digital networks; airplanes) now renders absurd respecting that exclusive right as it was before that technology.
(3) The proper response is for commons sense to “revolt” against the extreme claim (that the publishers get to control every copy, even one to simply produce an index; that the rights to land extend to the “periphery of the universe”)
(4) Revolting against the extreme claim does not entail abolishing all rights absolutely. The Causby’s can complain about planes flying within the “immediate reaches” of the ground. The authors and publishers should be able to complain about, e.g., someone who scanned and made full copies of a copyrighted book available online.
But there is one great and true part to DeLong’s email. As he writes,
Causby was entitled only to the decline in his property value, not to a share of the gains from the air age.
Truly, if there is a principle here, that should be it. The baseline is the value of the property BEFORE the new technology. Does the new technology reduce THAT value. Put differently, would authors and publishers be worse off with Google Print than they were before Google Print?"
They'll probably be better off, as long as Google doesn't tune the search engine to favour some authors/publishers over others, though there are other issues such as the hacking mentioned by Doug Lichtman in the comments; and the devil on the issues will, as usual, be in the detail. It seems fairly clear, however, that the lawsuits at the moment are primarily about derviving a share of Google's revenues from Google Print. Whether you would characterise this, as Larry does, as an attempt by the publishers and Authors Guild "to tax the value created by Google Print" is another question.
Microsoft to remove Sony BMG drm
Microsoft have labelled the controversial Sony BMG drm as spyware and will be releasing detection and removal tools to deal with it. Good for them.
Gartner tell business to delay on Vista
Gartner have encouraged the business community to avoid investing in Microsoft's coming Vista operating system until at least 2008, according to the Register.
Train commuters face security scans
Alistair Darling is planning to introduce airport style security checks at train stations. Passengers will apparently be chosen for random scanning checks. Mr Darling is quoted as saying "We are only as strong as our weakest link" as far as security is concerned but I'm not sure he really means it.
The 'treat everyone as a threat' approach to security will never come anywhere close to matching the effectiveness of targeting the real threats through sound intelligence and policing. Not to mention the waste of scarce security resources and time engaged in unproductive activities and processing of false positives, the damage spread through the meme of the fear that the guy sitting next to you could be a terrorist (despite the real chances of this being statistically negligible) etc...
The 'treat everyone as a threat' approach to security will never come anywhere close to matching the effectiveness of targeting the real threats through sound intelligence and policing. Not to mention the waste of scarce security resources and time engaged in unproductive activities and processing of false positives, the damage spread through the meme of the fear that the guy sitting next to you could be a terrorist (despite the real chances of this being statistically negligible) etc...
Building an Online Library
From the WSJ, a nice article on the Internet Archive and how they are putting together an online library "one volume at a time."
Liquid mesh
Susan Crawford sees the goal of net neutrality facing many complex challenges.
"I am as committed to the ideal of the open internet as the next guy, and my dream is to have OneWebDay support that goal. But the mischief that can be done to our future (in so many unexpected ways) by insisting on statutory and regulatory definition of neutrality seems to outweigh the possible benefits of this path. There is so much nonsense, so much horse-trading, between where we stand now and the glorious goal of neutrality. The sad fact is that Americans don't mind vertical integration one bit, and the duopolists know that. Not only that, but price discrimination in a competitive market is actually a good thing. Now all we need is a competitive market."
Before regulating networked technologies with what amount to simplistic dictats, we really need to understand how little we understand about the knowledge society and its enabling tools. As H.L Mencken once said, for every problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious and wrong.
"I am as committed to the ideal of the open internet as the next guy, and my dream is to have OneWebDay support that goal. But the mischief that can be done to our future (in so many unexpected ways) by insisting on statutory and regulatory definition of neutrality seems to outweigh the possible benefits of this path. There is so much nonsense, so much horse-trading, between where we stand now and the glorious goal of neutrality. The sad fact is that Americans don't mind vertical integration one bit, and the duopolists know that. Not only that, but price discrimination in a competitive market is actually a good thing. Now all we need is a competitive market."
Before regulating networked technologies with what amount to simplistic dictats, we really need to understand how little we understand about the knowledge society and its enabling tools. As H.L Mencken once said, for every problem there is a solution which is simple, obvious and wrong.
Sony shipping spyware from SunnComm too
Following Sony's recent PR nightmare over the security holes created by their CD drm, Ed Felton points out again that other Sony CDs user another drm program, SunnComm (the same SunnComm that turned the shift key on computers into an illegal circumvention device) Mediamax that is effectively spyware. Felten has a number of concerns about the spyware:
"1. MediaMax installs without meaningful consent or notification...
2. MediaMax discs include either no uninstaller or an uninstaller that fails to remove major components of the software...
3. MediaMax transmits information about you to SunnComm without notification or consent...
To summarize, MediaMax software:
Is installed onto the computer without meaningful notification or consent, and remains installed even if the license agreement is declined;
Includes either no uninstall mechanism or an uninstaller that fails to completely remove the program like it claims;
Sends information to SunnComm about the user’s activities contrary to SunnComm and Sony statements and without any option to disable the transmissions.
Does MediaMax also create security problems as serious as the Sony rootkit’s? Finding out for sure may be difficult, since the license agreement specifically prohibits disassembling the software. However, it certainly causes unnecessary risk. Playing a regular audio CD doesn’t require you to install any new software, so it involves minimal danger. Playing First4Internet or SunnComm discs means not only installing new software but trusting that software with full control of your computer. After last week’s revelations about the Sony rootkit, such trust does not seem well deserved.
Viewed together, the MediaMax and XCP copy protection schemes reveal a pattern of irresponsible behavior on the parts of Sony and its pals, SunnComm and First4Internet. Hopefully Sony’s promised re-examination of its copy protection initiatives will involve a hard look at both technologies."
"1. MediaMax installs without meaningful consent or notification...
2. MediaMax discs include either no uninstaller or an uninstaller that fails to remove major components of the software...
3. MediaMax transmits information about you to SunnComm without notification or consent...
To summarize, MediaMax software:
Is installed onto the computer without meaningful notification or consent, and remains installed even if the license agreement is declined;
Includes either no uninstall mechanism or an uninstaller that fails to completely remove the program like it claims;
Sends information to SunnComm about the user’s activities contrary to SunnComm and Sony statements and without any option to disable the transmissions.
Does MediaMax also create security problems as serious as the Sony rootkit’s? Finding out for sure may be difficult, since the license agreement specifically prohibits disassembling the software. However, it certainly causes unnecessary risk. Playing a regular audio CD doesn’t require you to install any new software, so it involves minimal danger. Playing First4Internet or SunnComm discs means not only installing new software but trusting that software with full control of your computer. After last week’s revelations about the Sony rootkit, such trust does not seem well deserved.
Viewed together, the MediaMax and XCP copy protection schemes reveal a pattern of irresponsible behavior on the parts of Sony and its pals, SunnComm and First4Internet. Hopefully Sony’s promised re-examination of its copy protection initiatives will involve a hard look at both technologies."
The prime minister's bubble
John was waxing lyrical on Tony Blair's and John Major's reality distortion fields on Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)