The Metropolitan police chief, Sir Ian Blair, has secretly recorded at least one phone converation with the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, though the report I heard on Radio 5 this morning was slightly confusing and there was a suggestion it may have happened more than once (somebody mentioned up to eight times). Ironically the controversion recorded focussed on the admissabilty of wire tap evidence in court. He has also apparently secretly recorded phone conversations with members of the Independent Police Complaints Commission without their consent.
Update: Spy Blog considers Sir Ian's actions understandable in the light of "the spin and media leaks which the disgraced Home Secretary David Blunkett inflicted on Sir John Stevens, the predecessor of Sir Ian Blair", that he would "feel the need to have an independent record of exactly what was, or was not said to his NuLabour political contacts."
Monday, March 13, 2006
London Underground object to tube map parodies
Geoff Marshall who holds the world record for visiting all 275 London Underground stations in 18 hours, 35 minutes and 43 seconds, has heard from the tube's lawyers and he's not too happy about it.
"Dear Geoff
This firm acts for Transport for London and Transport Trading Limited who are respectively the owner and licensee of the world-famous bar and circle device (“the Roundel”) and the Tube Map.
I would like to talk to you about your website www.geofftech.co.uk. Unfortunately, I was unable to trace a telephone number for you on the site, hence the email.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience (my direct line details are below).
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
[name removed]
Solicitor
Commercial Department"
He phoned them and was told if he didn't take down his page with LU map parodies they would arrange for it to be taken down for him. Geoff says:
"Why me? Why now? Geofftech and the tube has been on the internet for five years now, and I’m not alone in using ‘the roundel’ logo and other such tube graphics. I’ve just done a very simple search this morning, and found 43 other sites within half an hour that have also ’stolen’ the graphic. Are they being contacted as well?"
The answer to that one is yes. London Transport lawyers have been contacting a number of site owners about images like those on Geoff Marshall's site.
"Dear Geoff
This firm acts for Transport for London and Transport Trading Limited who are respectively the owner and licensee of the world-famous bar and circle device (“the Roundel”) and the Tube Map.
I would like to talk to you about your website www.geofftech.co.uk. Unfortunately, I was unable to trace a telephone number for you on the site, hence the email.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience (my direct line details are below).
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
[name removed]
Solicitor
Commercial Department"
He phoned them and was told if he didn't take down his page with LU map parodies they would arrange for it to be taken down for him. Geoff says:
"Why me? Why now? Geofftech and the tube has been on the internet for five years now, and I’m not alone in using ‘the roundel’ logo and other such tube graphics. I’ve just done a very simple search this morning, and found 43 other sites within half an hour that have also ’stolen’ the graphic. Are they being contacted as well?"
The answer to that one is yes. London Transport lawyers have been contacting a number of site owners about images like those on Geoff Marshall's site.
Hollywood thanks its best customers
Derek Slater is not too impressed at how Hollywood go about thanking their best customers.
"Adam Thierer celebrates HDCP and HDMI, which help ensure that your HD content can only be used with crippled devices that obey Hollywood's commands.
Adam appreciates new software that allows him to make nifty uses of his own digital media, like (circumventing DRM to) rip DVDs onto his computer. You'd think he'd be more sympathetic to the damage these restrictions will to early adopters of new tools.
You see, plenty of early HD equipment - TVs, projectors, graphics cards, receivers - doesn't support this content production. When consumers, for instance, get a new HD-DVD, they'll get video of below HD quality (down rezzing). On products that lack an analog output, they might not be able to watch at all -- not because the equipment isn't technically capable of playing HD, but because Hollywood doesn't trust them.
That's how Hollywood thanks its best customers, the early-and-often adopters. It breaks their compatible devices and forces them to repurchase products they already own. Contrary to Thierer's suggestions, the migration to these devices is anything but "natural." What's natural about consumers being forced to throw out their current HDTV and buy another with less features? What consumer wants that?"
"Adam Thierer celebrates HDCP and HDMI, which help ensure that your HD content can only be used with crippled devices that obey Hollywood's commands.
Adam appreciates new software that allows him to make nifty uses of his own digital media, like (circumventing DRM to) rip DVDs onto his computer. You'd think he'd be more sympathetic to the damage these restrictions will to early adopters of new tools.
You see, plenty of early HD equipment - TVs, projectors, graphics cards, receivers - doesn't support this content production. When consumers, for instance, get a new HD-DVD, they'll get video of below HD quality (down rezzing). On products that lack an analog output, they might not be able to watch at all -- not because the equipment isn't technically capable of playing HD, but because Hollywood doesn't trust them.
That's how Hollywood thanks its best customers, the early-and-often adopters. It breaks their compatible devices and forces them to repurchase products they already own. Contrary to Thierer's suggestions, the migration to these devices is anything but "natural." What's natural about consumers being forced to throw out their current HDTV and buy another with less features? What consumer wants that?"
Sunday, March 12, 2006
PMQs
A Register reader has suggested an amusing question for Tony Blair at Prime Minister's Questions next week:
" "Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister, a self-admitted luddite when it comes to using popular technology, technology readily used by anyone with enough dexterity to manipulate a button, would the Prime Minister disqualify himself as a credible partner in the debate about the electronic identification scheme his government wants to sell to the British people as an invaluable tool to help citizens identify themselves and to ward of the threat of international terrorism? Can we, Mr. Speaker, entrust the management of tens of millions of highly sensitive personal records of the citizens of this country to someone who admits to an inability to dial a song on an MP3-player? Can the public be certain that the cost and security implications are fully understood by their leaders? Can the Prime Minister tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether he will consult the President of the United States about some helpful hints and tips on the use of iPod-type music players on the occasion of their next meeting or will the Prime Minister head to Regent Street for an introductory course?"
Jorge"
" "Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister, a self-admitted luddite when it comes to using popular technology, technology readily used by anyone with enough dexterity to manipulate a button, would the Prime Minister disqualify himself as a credible partner in the debate about the electronic identification scheme his government wants to sell to the British people as an invaluable tool to help citizens identify themselves and to ward of the threat of international terrorism? Can we, Mr. Speaker, entrust the management of tens of millions of highly sensitive personal records of the citizens of this country to someone who admits to an inability to dial a song on an MP3-player? Can the public be certain that the cost and security implications are fully understood by their leaders? Can the Prime Minister tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether he will consult the President of the United States about some helpful hints and tips on the use of iPod-type music players on the occasion of their next meeting or will the Prime Minister head to Regent Street for an introductory course?"
Jorge"
A Muslim Lawyer's Defense of Publishing the Muhammad Cartoons
A Muslim Lawyer's Defense of Publishing the Muhammad Cartoons by Junaid Afeef.
"I am a Muslim. As a Muslim I am offended, disturbed and dismayed by the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and subsequently in numerous European publications. I am also offended by the whole brouhaha that erupted after the cartoons’ publication.
I am offended by the rude and vile depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. I am disturbed that so many enlightened people in the West fail to see that these bigoted caricatures maligning the entire Muslim community are symptomatic of a rapidly growing, irrational hatred for Muslims. I also am dismayed by the idiotic and shortsighted response to these cartoons by Muslims all over the world.
Despite my personal feelings about the cartoons, I am helping Acton Gorton, the young man who reprinted some of these same cartoons in the Daily Illini, a newspaper that serves the University of Illinois community in Champaign, Illinois. I am Acton’s attorney.
Those who noticed that I am a Muslim attorney quickly pointed out the irony, and I readily admit that it is ironic. However, strange though it may be, it is the right thing to do.
By defending Acton I am defending First Amendment rights. In responding to the cartoon controversy many Muslims in the West, and particularly in the United States, seem to have forgotten that our community is suffering an ongoing curtailment of our First Amendment rights. Too many people in the post-9/11 world are ready to abdicate these and other fundamental rights in the hopes of greater physical security.
There is evidence of the erosion of First Amendment rights of Muslims everywhere. Muslims are increasingly being forced to suppress deeply held beliefs, candid political observations, and personal convictions for fear of governmental and vigilante reprisals.
Today, imams who speak to Muslims about matters of self-defense and jihad as Qur’anic injunctions are in jeopardy of criminal prosecution for incitement. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, anyone who dares to link U.S. policies with Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism is vilified and demonized. At this rate non-violent civil disobedience by Muslims very soon will be characterized as providing material support and aid to terrorists.
I object to such curtailments of the First Amendment. As a matter of principle then, I must also object to any attempts to censor the republication of the cartoons. To demand unfettered free speech only when it suits me would be hypocritical."
The whole piece is worth reading.
"I am a Muslim. As a Muslim I am offended, disturbed and dismayed by the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that first appeared in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and subsequently in numerous European publications. I am also offended by the whole brouhaha that erupted after the cartoons’ publication.
I am offended by the rude and vile depiction of the Prophet Muhammad. I am disturbed that so many enlightened people in the West fail to see that these bigoted caricatures maligning the entire Muslim community are symptomatic of a rapidly growing, irrational hatred for Muslims. I also am dismayed by the idiotic and shortsighted response to these cartoons by Muslims all over the world.
Despite my personal feelings about the cartoons, I am helping Acton Gorton, the young man who reprinted some of these same cartoons in the Daily Illini, a newspaper that serves the University of Illinois community in Champaign, Illinois. I am Acton’s attorney.
Those who noticed that I am a Muslim attorney quickly pointed out the irony, and I readily admit that it is ironic. However, strange though it may be, it is the right thing to do.
By defending Acton I am defending First Amendment rights. In responding to the cartoon controversy many Muslims in the West, and particularly in the United States, seem to have forgotten that our community is suffering an ongoing curtailment of our First Amendment rights. Too many people in the post-9/11 world are ready to abdicate these and other fundamental rights in the hopes of greater physical security.
There is evidence of the erosion of First Amendment rights of Muslims everywhere. Muslims are increasingly being forced to suppress deeply held beliefs, candid political observations, and personal convictions for fear of governmental and vigilante reprisals.
Today, imams who speak to Muslims about matters of self-defense and jihad as Qur’anic injunctions are in jeopardy of criminal prosecution for incitement. Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, anyone who dares to link U.S. policies with Al-Qaeda sponsored terrorism is vilified and demonized. At this rate non-violent civil disobedience by Muslims very soon will be characterized as providing material support and aid to terrorists.
I object to such curtailments of the First Amendment. As a matter of principle then, I must also object to any attempts to censor the republication of the cartoons. To demand unfettered free speech only when it suits me would be hypocritical."
The whole piece is worth reading.
French Court bans private copying hostile drm
Here's an English language report at Indicare on the French case I mentioned recently where the court took a hostile view to drm that interfered with French consumers' private copying right. Abstract:
"France is one of the European countries where a particularly vivid public discussion about DRM and the private copying exception took place. This is thanks to the efforts of French consumer organisations that initiated a number of court cases dealing with complaints of consumers about CDs and DVDs that could, among others, not be copied and ripped because of technical protection measures in place. This article discusses the latest DRM decision in France, a decision that went one step further than its predecessors when dealing with the difficult question of the relationship between DRM and private copying."
The defendands had argued that the plaintiff had no legal standing to bring the case, that there was no right to private copying, and that it was futile to expect a producer to label their products noting that they include drm because technology is changing all the time! That last one is pretty good - just imagine a food manufacturer saying you can't possibly expect them to include a label on the packaging saying 'this contains poison' because technology is changing all the time. In any case the court didn't accept any of it:
"Thankfully, the Paris Court dealt rather curtly with the argument of a lack of legal standing of UFC Que Choisir (not accepted) and the argument of lack of playability (accepted). It then ventured, without further delay, bravely onto a terrain that causes grown-up politicians and law makers to mumble excuses, look in a different direction or at their shoes and do their best to change the topic. I am speaking of Article 6 (4) of the European Copyright Directive. Article 6 (4) of the European Copyright Directive is the provision in the European Copyright Directive that addresses the conflict between DRM and copyright's exceptions. I say "addresses" and not "solves", because all that Article 6 (4) of the EUCD does is to determine rather vaguely that "Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that right holders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation … the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation."
Court says: Users of DRM have to respect private copying exception
The Tribunal de Grande Instance Paris, after having defended once again the private copying exception and explaining patiently why it was not in conflict with the three-step-test, stressed the need to interpret French law in the light of the European Directive (see already Court of Appeals, Paris, 2004). The court's interpretation of Article 6 (4) of the EUCD led it to the conclusion that technological protection measures must respect certain exceptions, including the private copying exception. With the understatement that is so characteristic of French judges, the court then expressed in a few words the essence of much scholarly writing and ranting over the past years by observing matter-of-factly: "the application of anti-copying protection devices by phonogram producers causes the statutory limitations of the authors' exclusive rights to authorise or prohibit reproductions to fade"" [ie. DRM bypasses the law] "("La mesure de protection adoptee par le producteur du phonogramme fait disparaître la limite fixée par le législateur au droit exclusif de auteurs d'autoriser ou d'interdire la reproduction de leurs oeuvres"). Indeed.
The court continued with admirable straightforwardness to conclude that it is task of the DRM user, here: the phonogram producer, to make sure that private copying remains possible, despite the application of technological protection measures."
"France is one of the European countries where a particularly vivid public discussion about DRM and the private copying exception took place. This is thanks to the efforts of French consumer organisations that initiated a number of court cases dealing with complaints of consumers about CDs and DVDs that could, among others, not be copied and ripped because of technical protection measures in place. This article discusses the latest DRM decision in France, a decision that went one step further than its predecessors when dealing with the difficult question of the relationship between DRM and private copying."
The defendands had argued that the plaintiff had no legal standing to bring the case, that there was no right to private copying, and that it was futile to expect a producer to label their products noting that they include drm because technology is changing all the time! That last one is pretty good - just imagine a food manufacturer saying you can't possibly expect them to include a label on the packaging saying 'this contains poison' because technology is changing all the time. In any case the court didn't accept any of it:
"Thankfully, the Paris Court dealt rather curtly with the argument of a lack of legal standing of UFC Que Choisir (not accepted) and the argument of lack of playability (accepted). It then ventured, without further delay, bravely onto a terrain that causes grown-up politicians and law makers to mumble excuses, look in a different direction or at their shoes and do their best to change the topic. I am speaking of Article 6 (4) of the European Copyright Directive. Article 6 (4) of the European Copyright Directive is the provision in the European Copyright Directive that addresses the conflict between DRM and copyright's exceptions. I say "addresses" and not "solves", because all that Article 6 (4) of the EUCD does is to determine rather vaguely that "Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure that right holders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation … the means of benefiting from that exception or limitation."
Court says: Users of DRM have to respect private copying exception
The Tribunal de Grande Instance Paris, after having defended once again the private copying exception and explaining patiently why it was not in conflict with the three-step-test, stressed the need to interpret French law in the light of the European Directive (see already Court of Appeals, Paris, 2004). The court's interpretation of Article 6 (4) of the EUCD led it to the conclusion that technological protection measures must respect certain exceptions, including the private copying exception. With the understatement that is so characteristic of French judges, the court then expressed in a few words the essence of much scholarly writing and ranting over the past years by observing matter-of-factly: "the application of anti-copying protection devices by phonogram producers causes the statutory limitations of the authors' exclusive rights to authorise or prohibit reproductions to fade"" [ie. DRM bypasses the law] "("La mesure de protection adoptee par le producteur du phonogramme fait disparaître la limite fixée par le législateur au droit exclusif de auteurs d'autoriser ou d'interdire la reproduction de leurs oeuvres"). Indeed.
The court continued with admirable straightforwardness to conclude that it is task of the DRM user, here: the phonogram producer, to make sure that private copying remains possible, despite the application of technological protection measures."
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Open University Open Content Initiative
I can finally go public officially with this: the Open University's Open Content Initiative will be formally launched in October. Naturally I'm delighted. The Open University, since its inception, has fundamentally been about open access to knowledge and I firmly believe that this initiative is one of the most important things we have ever done.
For those of you who have been emailing to ask when my Internet law course, based on Larry Lessig's book, The Future of Ideas, would reappear, the plan is that at least part of it will be included in the main October launch and the rest released in stages.
Here's the OU press release:
"Open University announces £5.65 million project to make learning material free on the internet
The Open University today announced a GBP £5.65 million (US $9.9 million) project to make a selection of its learning materials available free of charge to educators and learners around the world. Supported by a grant of US $4.45 million from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation the University will launch the website in October 2006.
The provision on the internet of 'Open Educational Resources', free at point of use and available to everyone, reflects The Open University's mission of promoting fair access for all. During the initial phase of this initiative, the University will select and make available educational resources from all study levels from access to postgraduate and from a full range of subject themes: arts and history, business and management, health and lifestyle, languages, science and nature, society and technology. Learners will also be able to benefit from a range of study skills development material.
The Open University was a pioneer in making learning materials freely available through its long and successful partnership with the BBC. The University's television programmes are publicly broadcast by the BBC and many are supported by free internet activities and print materials (www.Open2.net). The University is already working with partners in Africa to make educational resources freely available under both the TESSA and Open Door projects (see notes below).
The Open University will draw on its experience in supported open learning to provide an environment which contains both high quality learning materials and a range of learning support and informal community building tools. There will be one site that is primarily for learners, where material with suggested learning pathways will be offered. A second site will be primarily for other course creators; it will foster the concept of sharing and re-use of materials. Through the development of both sites the University plans to take open content delivery on to a new level.
The Vice-Chancellor of The Open University, Professor Brenda Gourley, said "The philosophy of open access and sharing knowledge is a wonderful fit with the founding principles of The Open University and with the University's very strong commitment to opening up educational access and widening participation. The University will be developing forms of open content e-learning which will reach less experienced learners and, we hope, encourage an appetite for further learning. The Open University will be the first in the UK to offer Open Content materials under a Creative Commons licence. We are deeply grateful to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for its generous support."
"Over the past five years the Hewlett Foundation has been a leading investor in the area of Open Educational Resources with the goal of equalizing access to knowledge across the globe," said Marshall S. Smith, the Hewlett Foundation's Education Program Director. "The Open University of the UK is unsurpassed in the area of digitized academic material. We are delighted to support the Open University's initiative to make some of its high quality academic content openly available to everyone around the world."
Editor's Notes
The Open University has over 210,000 students studying OU courses this year, with around 40,000 studying outside the UK. Since its foundation in 1969 The Open University has pursued a social justice mission to open education to all.
TESSA (Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa) project aims to develop a school based training programme for unqualified and under qualified teachers working in primary schools in Africa. It will provide a comprehensive bank of teacher training resources, focusing on the teaching of literacy, numeracy, primary science and personal and health education that can be used by teacher trainers in colleges and universities across Africa. The TESSA programme, which is being led by The Open University together with a consortium of African and international organisations, is planned to support a wide range of courses and qualifications including accredited courses and in-service professional development programmes.
Open Door initiative. This scheme aims to support higher education by making its course materials available to a group of African universities, under licence but free of charge. A pilot, funded by the UK's Department for Education and Skills, is working with three universities, including Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, and the University of Zambia. The pilot will provide the groundwork for expanding the number of partners in the scheme. It is particularly aimed at universities where internet access is severely limited.
Resources
Website: http://oci.open.ac.uk"
For those of you who have been emailing to ask when my Internet law course, based on Larry Lessig's book, The Future of Ideas, would reappear, the plan is that at least part of it will be included in the main October launch and the rest released in stages.
Here's the OU press release:
"Open University announces £5.65 million project to make learning material free on the internet
The Open University today announced a GBP £5.65 million (US $9.9 million) project to make a selection of its learning materials available free of charge to educators and learners around the world. Supported by a grant of US $4.45 million from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation the University will launch the website in October 2006.
The provision on the internet of 'Open Educational Resources', free at point of use and available to everyone, reflects The Open University's mission of promoting fair access for all. During the initial phase of this initiative, the University will select and make available educational resources from all study levels from access to postgraduate and from a full range of subject themes: arts and history, business and management, health and lifestyle, languages, science and nature, society and technology. Learners will also be able to benefit from a range of study skills development material.
The Open University was a pioneer in making learning materials freely available through its long and successful partnership with the BBC. The University's television programmes are publicly broadcast by the BBC and many are supported by free internet activities and print materials (www.Open2.net). The University is already working with partners in Africa to make educational resources freely available under both the TESSA and Open Door projects (see notes below).
The Open University will draw on its experience in supported open learning to provide an environment which contains both high quality learning materials and a range of learning support and informal community building tools. There will be one site that is primarily for learners, where material with suggested learning pathways will be offered. A second site will be primarily for other course creators; it will foster the concept of sharing and re-use of materials. Through the development of both sites the University plans to take open content delivery on to a new level.
The Vice-Chancellor of The Open University, Professor Brenda Gourley, said "The philosophy of open access and sharing knowledge is a wonderful fit with the founding principles of The Open University and with the University's very strong commitment to opening up educational access and widening participation. The University will be developing forms of open content e-learning which will reach less experienced learners and, we hope, encourage an appetite for further learning. The Open University will be the first in the UK to offer Open Content materials under a Creative Commons licence. We are deeply grateful to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation for its generous support."
"Over the past five years the Hewlett Foundation has been a leading investor in the area of Open Educational Resources with the goal of equalizing access to knowledge across the globe," said Marshall S. Smith, the Hewlett Foundation's Education Program Director. "The Open University of the UK is unsurpassed in the area of digitized academic material. We are delighted to support the Open University's initiative to make some of its high quality academic content openly available to everyone around the world."
Editor's Notes
The Open University has over 210,000 students studying OU courses this year, with around 40,000 studying outside the UK. Since its foundation in 1969 The Open University has pursued a social justice mission to open education to all.
TESSA (Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa) project aims to develop a school based training programme for unqualified and under qualified teachers working in primary schools in Africa. It will provide a comprehensive bank of teacher training resources, focusing on the teaching of literacy, numeracy, primary science and personal and health education that can be used by teacher trainers in colleges and universities across Africa. The TESSA programme, which is being led by The Open University together with a consortium of African and international organisations, is planned to support a wide range of courses and qualifications including accredited courses and in-service professional development programmes.
Open Door initiative. This scheme aims to support higher education by making its course materials available to a group of African universities, under licence but free of charge. A pilot, funded by the UK's Department for Education and Skills, is working with three universities, including Fourah Bay College, University of Sierra Leone, and the University of Zambia. The pilot will provide the groundwork for expanding the number of partners in the scheme. It is particularly aimed at universities where internet access is severely limited.
Resources
Website: http://oci.open.ac.uk"
Friday, March 10, 2006
Arsenal get Juventus in the Quarters
Wouldn't you know it, we drew Juventus in the quarter finals of the Champions'League.
Juventus will be a tougher prospect than Real Madrid but after years of trying, Patrick Veira or Thiery Henry will finally make it through to the semi finals. Most punters have understandably tagged Barcelona as favorites, though I reckon that Juve are a slighly stronger all round outfit, which was why I'd have preferred to have avoided them.
Juventus will be a tougher prospect than Real Madrid but after years of trying, Patrick Veira or Thiery Henry will finally make it through to the semi finals. Most punters have understandably tagged Barcelona as favorites, though I reckon that Juve are a slighly stronger all round outfit, which was why I'd have preferred to have avoided them.
P2P flip flopping in France
The fun and games over the French government's attempts to introduce a law to crack down on p2p file sharing is continuing.
First the government tried to introduce the provisions quietly before Christmas but were caught off gaurd by a late night vote by opponents of the proposals, who effectively introduced an amendment to legalise file sharing. Then the government recently dropped that amendment unilaterally going back to their original plan. Now it looks as though they have had to reintroduce the offending amendment after the opposition threatened to mount a constitutional challenge accusing the government of breaking the rules of parliament.
Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres said "This isn't a U-turn. It's a sign of our determination to see this through."
"The culture minister's compromise draft lightens the penalties for ordinary Internet users who pirate music or movies, removing the jail terms originally proposed and slashing maximum fines to $150 (about R937) from $300 000 (about R1,8-million).
In another gesture to consumer advocates, online stores would have to sell music and movies in formats that can be played on all kinds of devices - a requirement that could open the way for legal challenges against sites like Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes, which uses an exclusive format that can only be played on the company's own iPod devices.
But the proposals would also strengthen legal protection for anti-copy technologies known as DRMs, shielding them from challenge under French laws that grant consumers the right to make copies of music and film for private use."
Sounds like a right mess - how can the law say Apple's drm is outlawed but drm is protected? I detect journalistic confusion here. The music industry are urging the government to introduce the law without the p2p legalising amendments. Why on earth would they want to let mere constitutional constraints get in the way?
First the government tried to introduce the provisions quietly before Christmas but were caught off gaurd by a late night vote by opponents of the proposals, who effectively introduced an amendment to legalise file sharing. Then the government recently dropped that amendment unilaterally going back to their original plan. Now it looks as though they have had to reintroduce the offending amendment after the opposition threatened to mount a constitutional challenge accusing the government of breaking the rules of parliament.
Culture Minister Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres said "This isn't a U-turn. It's a sign of our determination to see this through."
"The culture minister's compromise draft lightens the penalties for ordinary Internet users who pirate music or movies, removing the jail terms originally proposed and slashing maximum fines to $150 (about R937) from $300 000 (about R1,8-million).
In another gesture to consumer advocates, online stores would have to sell music and movies in formats that can be played on all kinds of devices - a requirement that could open the way for legal challenges against sites like Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes, which uses an exclusive format that can only be played on the company's own iPod devices.
But the proposals would also strengthen legal protection for anti-copy technologies known as DRMs, shielding them from challenge under French laws that grant consumers the right to make copies of music and film for private use."
Sounds like a right mess - how can the law say Apple's drm is outlawed but drm is protected? I detect journalistic confusion here. The music industry are urging the government to introduce the law without the p2p legalising amendments. Why on earth would they want to let mere constitutional constraints get in the way?
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Tesco win web trademark case
Tesco have won a trademark dispute against a company which sent customers to you'll never guess who...
...er, Tesco.
You see Tesco started a scheme through which
"third party website providers could become Tesco affiliates, placing links from their website transferring consumers to Tesco's own website. Tesco would then pay commission to the affiliate in respect of sales so generated. Elogicom became one such affiliate. However, instead of throwing a link from its own website to that of Tesco, it registered a number of its own websites which included the word word ‘tesco’ in the URL. Consumers arriving at those unauthorised websites were taken directly to a Tesco site; any sales made through accessing those sites would earn Elogicom commission.
Tesco sued for trade mark infringement, seeking summary judgment and seeking injunctive relief...
On the merits, the IPKat is struggling a little to understand what's going on. For example, if Elogicom's use of the Tesco marks had the effect of sending consumer traffic directly to Tesco's own website, must we say that consumers (i) intend to deal directly with Tesco but (ii) they are confused into dealing directly with Tesco? Merpel agrees and adds, is it any different from a trader putting up a sign in the street reading "This way to Tesco", which enables consumers to get directly to the supermarket?"
...er, Tesco.
You see Tesco started a scheme through which
"third party website providers could become Tesco affiliates, placing links from their website transferring consumers to Tesco's own website. Tesco would then pay commission to the affiliate in respect of sales so generated. Elogicom became one such affiliate. However, instead of throwing a link from its own website to that of Tesco, it registered a number of its own websites which included the word word ‘tesco’ in the URL. Consumers arriving at those unauthorised websites were taken directly to a Tesco site; any sales made through accessing those sites would earn Elogicom commission.
Tesco sued for trade mark infringement, seeking summary judgment and seeking injunctive relief...
On the merits, the IPKat is struggling a little to understand what's going on. For example, if Elogicom's use of the Tesco marks had the effect of sending consumer traffic directly to Tesco's own website, must we say that consumers (i) intend to deal directly with Tesco but (ii) they are confused into dealing directly with Tesco? Merpel agrees and adds, is it any different from a trader putting up a sign in the street reading "This way to Tesco", which enables consumers to get directly to the supermarket?"
The Pope's got an iPod
The Canonist wonders if the Pope has been infringing copyright with his new iPod.
"How long before someone starts selling a pre-loaded Pope iPod? You can already buy Aish HaTorah’s Judaism iPod; are any other pre-loaded religious iPods available?
Anyway, Benedict XVI may not have a great grasp on technology today (”When the head of the radio’s technical and computer support department, Mauro Milita, identified himself and handed the pope the boxed iPod, the pope was said to have replied, ‘Computer technology is the future.’”), but he does have a chance to listen to some music: “The pope’s new 2-gigabyte digital audio player already was loaded with a sampling of the radio’s programming in English, Italian and German and musical compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Frederic Chopin, Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky and Igor Stravinsky.” But was that music paid for? I have a hard time believing that the radio station bought individual copies of the relevant CDs just to load them into the pope’s iPod; presumably, they’re ripped from CDs they just had lying around. So, is the pope running afoul of the RIAA? That’d seem a story worth investigating."
"How long before someone starts selling a pre-loaded Pope iPod? You can already buy Aish HaTorah’s Judaism iPod; are any other pre-loaded religious iPods available?
Anyway, Benedict XVI may not have a great grasp on technology today (”When the head of the radio’s technical and computer support department, Mauro Milita, identified himself and handed the pope the boxed iPod, the pope was said to have replied, ‘Computer technology is the future.’”), but he does have a chance to listen to some music: “The pope’s new 2-gigabyte digital audio player already was loaded with a sampling of the radio’s programming in English, Italian and German and musical compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Frederic Chopin, Peter Ilich Tchaikovsky and Igor Stravinsky.” But was that music paid for? I have a hard time believing that the radio station bought individual copies of the relevant CDs just to load them into the pope’s iPod; presumably, they’re ripped from CDs they just had lying around. So, is the pope running afoul of the RIAA? That’d seem a story worth investigating."
John Battelle’s The Search and Google Book Search
John Battelle is unhappy that his publisher, Penguin, is one of the consortium of publishers suing Google over their Book Search project.
Yahoo chief "feels horrible" about China arrests
Yahoo! chief, Jerry Yang, "feels horrible" that Yahoo! helped the Chinese authorities to jail journalists. When asked about the arrests he said they "are never things you go home and feel good about. We feel horrible about that...We have no way of preventing that beforehand....If you want to do business there you have to comply."
Badly damaging someone's life is merely the price of doing business. The heart of the business process is amoral hence the key rule is caveat emptor, where the 'emptor' encompasses everyone who comes into contact with that business in any way. It's kind of ironic that doing business fundamentally depends simultaneously on trust and lack of trust.
I doubt Mr Yang will get much sympathy over his horrible feelings but my question would be at what point does he believe the price of compliance becomes too high?
Badly damaging someone's life is merely the price of doing business. The heart of the business process is amoral hence the key rule is caveat emptor, where the 'emptor' encompasses everyone who comes into contact with that business in any way. It's kind of ironic that doing business fundamentally depends simultaneously on trust and lack of trust.
I doubt Mr Yang will get much sympathy over his horrible feelings but my question would be at what point does he believe the price of compliance becomes too high?
Help EFF Spread the Word About the Sony BMG Settlement
The EFF would like some help getting the message out about their settlement with Sony BMG over the drm rootkit fiasco. They say "Sony BMG won't be held accountable if music fans don't have an easy way to learn about the flawed software, the settlement, and how to submit claims." Clicking on any of the banners below will take you to the EFF Sony BMG settlement site.
Arsenal through
The big news of the past 24 hours, of course, is that Arsenal have managed to get through to the quarter finals of the European Champions league again but not without their usual fair share of heart stopping moments. They've been having a terrible season by their standards and have contrived so often to throw it away in the Champions League at Highbury that I feared it was going to be another one of those nights. I should have had more faith but then it's a concept I don't place much store by - evidence is what counts. In any case congratulations to Arsene Wenger and the team and let's hope we avoid Juventus and Barcelona in the draw for the quarter finals. Commiserations to Liverpool, Chelsea and Rangers.
Clickwrap and copyright
In Slaying the Leather-Winged Demons in the Night: Reforming Copyright Owner Contracting with Clickwrap Misuse Lydia Pallas Loren raises an interesting idea about how to deal with unfair licensing terms:
"In the era of digital delivery of content, copyright owners have turned with a vengeance to contract law to specify the rights and responsibilities of their customers. Many copyright owners today seek to avoid the express statutory limits on their rights contained in the Copyright Act by invoking the institution of contract. For example, these contracts attempt to prohibit the exercise of rights universally recognized as fair use, such as copying portions of a work for criticisms, product comparison and reverse engineering, or they seek to limit the application of the first sale doctrine. Enforcement of these contractual provisions alters the statutory scheme defined by Congress in the Copyright Act. This Article argues that the current legal doctrines available to invalidate these overreaching provisions or to strike claims asserted for their breach fail to provide appropriate incentives to reform contracting behavior by content owners. Even if, as a matter of contract law, a court would not enforce contractual terms that are inconsistent with the Copyright Act, the use of these provisions in ubiquitous shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses has an in terrorem effect on users. After exploring the potential chilling effect that these overreaching clauses may have on users' behavior and why it is critical for courts to find ways to discourage the use of such clauses, this article argues that applying an appropriately tailored doctrine of copyright misuse to these licensing terms would provide a more robust reformation of contracting behavior.
Copyright misuse is an equitable defense based on a claim that the copyright owner has used the rights granted by the federal Copyright Act in a manner that is contrary to the public interest; this defense can be raised by an accused infringer that has not been affected by the alleged misuse. Recognizing a copyright misuse defense based on contract clauses that seek to avoid federal limitations on copyright rights has several advantages. First, an assertion of copyright misuse can be made in a case that does not involve a claim for breach of one of these clauses. Second, as an equitable doctrine, misuse is subject to interpretation and revision by the courts; no legislative action is necessary. Third, a successful misuse defense results in a refusal by the court to enforce the copyright until the misuse is "purged." Given the potential downside risk of contractual overreaching, a broader application of the misuse doctrine would, therefore, "chill" a copyright owner's impulse to overreach."
So there are limits on copyright owners rights. These limits are there to benefit society as a whole. Copyright owners, like software companies,sometimes use licences to get individual consumers to give up their consumer rights. Consumer choice reigns - agree to the licence or no deal. This proposal suggests that every time a copyright owner seeks to bypass provisions of copyright law which benefit the public good, there should be "a rebuttable presumption of misuse." In other words when a licence seeks to bypass the statuatory limitations on a copyright owner's rights, it is presumed to be to the public's detriment; and the copyright owner is obliged to prove such licences do not undermine the public good.
"In the era of digital delivery of content, copyright owners have turned with a vengeance to contract law to specify the rights and responsibilities of their customers. Many copyright owners today seek to avoid the express statutory limits on their rights contained in the Copyright Act by invoking the institution of contract. For example, these contracts attempt to prohibit the exercise of rights universally recognized as fair use, such as copying portions of a work for criticisms, product comparison and reverse engineering, or they seek to limit the application of the first sale doctrine. Enforcement of these contractual provisions alters the statutory scheme defined by Congress in the Copyright Act. This Article argues that the current legal doctrines available to invalidate these overreaching provisions or to strike claims asserted for their breach fail to provide appropriate incentives to reform contracting behavior by content owners. Even if, as a matter of contract law, a court would not enforce contractual terms that are inconsistent with the Copyright Act, the use of these provisions in ubiquitous shrinkwrap and clickwrap licenses has an in terrorem effect on users. After exploring the potential chilling effect that these overreaching clauses may have on users' behavior and why it is critical for courts to find ways to discourage the use of such clauses, this article argues that applying an appropriately tailored doctrine of copyright misuse to these licensing terms would provide a more robust reformation of contracting behavior.
Copyright misuse is an equitable defense based on a claim that the copyright owner has used the rights granted by the federal Copyright Act in a manner that is contrary to the public interest; this defense can be raised by an accused infringer that has not been affected by the alleged misuse. Recognizing a copyright misuse defense based on contract clauses that seek to avoid federal limitations on copyright rights has several advantages. First, an assertion of copyright misuse can be made in a case that does not involve a claim for breach of one of these clauses. Second, as an equitable doctrine, misuse is subject to interpretation and revision by the courts; no legislative action is necessary. Third, a successful misuse defense results in a refusal by the court to enforce the copyright until the misuse is "purged." Given the potential downside risk of contractual overreaching, a broader application of the misuse doctrine would, therefore, "chill" a copyright owner's impulse to overreach."
So there are limits on copyright owners rights. These limits are there to benefit society as a whole. Copyright owners, like software companies,sometimes use licences to get individual consumers to give up their consumer rights. Consumer choice reigns - agree to the licence or no deal. This proposal suggests that every time a copyright owner seeks to bypass provisions of copyright law which benefit the public good, there should be "a rebuttable presumption of misuse." In other words when a licence seeks to bypass the statuatory limitations on a copyright owner's rights, it is presumed to be to the public's detriment; and the copyright owner is obliged to prove such licences do not undermine the public good.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Adelphi Charter Launched Down Under
The Adelphi Charter has been launched in Australia. It's worth repeating the 9 principles of the charter:
1. Laws regulating intellectual property must serve as means of achieving creative, social and economic ends and not as ends in themselves.
2. These laws and regulations must serve, and never overturn, the basic human rights to health, education, employment and cultural life.
3. The public interest requires a balance between the public domain and private rights. It also requires a balance between the free competition that is essential for economic vitality and the monopoly rights granted by intellectual property laws.
4. Intellectual property protection must not be extended to abstract ideas, facts or data.
5. Patents must not be extended over mathematical models, scientific theories, computer code, methods for teaching, business processes, methods of medical diagnosis, therapy or surgery.
6. Copyright and patents must be limited in time and their terms must not extend beyond what is proportionate and necessary.
7. Government must facilitate a wide range of policies to stimulate access and innovation, including non-proprietary models such as open source software licensing and open access to scientific literature.
8. Intellectual property laws must take account of developing countries' social and economic circumstances.
9. In making decisions about intellectual property law, governments should adhere to these rules:
* There must be an automatic presumption against creating new areas of intellectual property protection, extending existing privileges or extending the duration of rights.
* The burden of proof in such cases must lie on the advocates of change.
* Change must be allowed only if a rigorous analysis clearly demonstrates that it will promote people's basic rights and economic well-being.
* Throughout, there should be wide public consultation and a comprehensive, objective and transparent assessment of public benefits and detriments.
1. Laws regulating intellectual property must serve as means of achieving creative, social and economic ends and not as ends in themselves.
2. These laws and regulations must serve, and never overturn, the basic human rights to health, education, employment and cultural life.
3. The public interest requires a balance between the public domain and private rights. It also requires a balance between the free competition that is essential for economic vitality and the monopoly rights granted by intellectual property laws.
4. Intellectual property protection must not be extended to abstract ideas, facts or data.
5. Patents must not be extended over mathematical models, scientific theories, computer code, methods for teaching, business processes, methods of medical diagnosis, therapy or surgery.
6. Copyright and patents must be limited in time and their terms must not extend beyond what is proportionate and necessary.
7. Government must facilitate a wide range of policies to stimulate access and innovation, including non-proprietary models such as open source software licensing and open access to scientific literature.
8. Intellectual property laws must take account of developing countries' social and economic circumstances.
9. In making decisions about intellectual property law, governments should adhere to these rules:
* There must be an automatic presumption against creating new areas of intellectual property protection, extending existing privileges or extending the duration of rights.
* The burden of proof in such cases must lie on the advocates of change.
* Change must be allowed only if a rigorous analysis clearly demonstrates that it will promote people's basic rights and economic well-being.
* Throughout, there should be wide public consultation and a comprehensive, objective and transparent assessment of public benefits and detriments.
Leg & Reg Reform Bill again
William Heath has also been chewing on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
"You start by thinking "how do we best computerise government". As you get sucked into that question you find yourself asking something like "If government became explicitly rules based, what would those rules be? How do we really want it to work?" By now you're sucked into the underlying intent of what's going on. Here's Neil Rose in this month's Law Gazette on the latest power grab.
So, once more: how do we best computerise it all?
It's a mixed-up starting point, but that feels like where we are."
"You start by thinking "how do we best computerise government". As you get sucked into that question you find yourself asking something like "If government became explicitly rules based, what would those rules be? How do we really want it to work?" By now you're sucked into the underlying intent of what's going on. Here's Neil Rose in this month's Law Gazette on the latest power grab.
The Law Society and City solicitors have joined the chorus of concern over government plans to give Ministers powers to amend primary legislation and the common law. Dubbed the "Abolition of Parliament Bill" by some, the Legislative and Regulatory reform Bill overhauls the 2001 Regulatory Reform Act with the aim of cutting red tape. Clause 1 empowers a Minister to reform legislation and/or implement Law Commission recommendations by Order - in doing the latter the Minister will be able to codify, amend or abolish "any rule of law" . . . Law Society president Kevin Martin said, "It introduces worryingly wide powers that affect all legislation, with inadequate safeguards. In theory, Mionisters could make Orders allowing "any person" to legislate, including creating new crimes carrying up to two years in prison . . . " In a letter to The Times last month, six Cambridge University law professors said the Bill would be a major shift of power, and allow the government to, among other things, curtail or abolish jury trial and allow the Prime Minister to sack judges.Then you come to the odd realisation that assorted geeks and freaks and the marginalised in society seem to care more and think more clearly about our legal protections against the state than those to whom we've entrusted responsibility for defining those laws. But that the judiciary, other professionals and NGOs seem to agree.
So, once more: how do we best computerise it all?
It's a mixed-up starting point, but that feels like where we are."
Identity and Authentication must remain distinct
An excellent article from Steve Riley, Senior Security Strategist at Microsoft, on Why Identity and Authentication Must Remain Distinct
"Identity. A security principal (you or a computer, typically) wants to access a system. Because the system doesn’t know you yet, you need to make a declaration of who you are. Your answer to the question “Who are you” is the first thing you present to a system when you want to use it. Some common examples of identity are user IDs, digital certificates (which include public keys), and ATM cards. A notable characteristic of identity is that it is public, and it has to be this way: identity is your claim about yourself, and you make that claim using something that’s publicly available.
Authentication. This is the answer to the question “OK, how can you prove it?” When you present your identity to a system, the system wants you to prove that it is indeed you and not someone else. The system will challenge you, and you must respond in some way. Common authenticators include passwords, private keys, and PINs. Whereas identity is public, authentication is private: it’s a secret known (presumably) only by you. In some cases, like passwords, the system also knows the secret. In other cases, like PKI, the system doesn’t need to possess the secret, but can validate its authenticity (this is one of many reasons why PKI is superior). Your possession of this secret is what proves that you are who you claim to be...
Identity and authentication are distinct components of the steps necessary to use a secure computer system. Identity without authentication lacks proof; authentication without identity invalidates auditing and eliminates multi-user capability (consider Windows 95/98, which supported a password as an authenticator but no user ID). If biometrics become important to you as you begin considering how to strengthen identity and authentication in your security strategy, remember to evaluate how a particular biometric implementation views itself. Proper biometrics are identity only and will be accompanied, like all good identifiers, by a secret of some kind -- a PIN, a private key on a smart card, or, yes, even a password...
Now consider biometrics. Given the definitions and characteristics of identity and authentication, which is biometrics: identity or authentication?
Before we answer the question, think about the attributes of biometrics. Is it public or private? Public, of course. You leave various biometrics everywhere you go -- your fingerprints remain on anything you touch, your face is stored in countless surveillance systems, your retina patterns are known at least by your optometrist, perhaps. And it’s believed, although there is no actual evidence to support the claim, that biometrics are unique. (How would one prove it, other than examining the fingerprints and retinas of every single individual on the planet?) Given this, it follows that biometrics are identity, not authentication -- despite the claims of some vendors. "
Got that?
1. Identity is public.
2. Authentication is secret.
3. Biometrics are public so fall into the identity bucket.
William Heath has a question in the light of Steve Riley's lesson:
"If biometrics are public, why do we need to pay billions to have them compulsorily recorded and stored on a highly secure national server?"
"Identity. A security principal (you or a computer, typically) wants to access a system. Because the system doesn’t know you yet, you need to make a declaration of who you are. Your answer to the question “Who are you” is the first thing you present to a system when you want to use it. Some common examples of identity are user IDs, digital certificates (which include public keys), and ATM cards. A notable characteristic of identity is that it is public, and it has to be this way: identity is your claim about yourself, and you make that claim using something that’s publicly available.
Authentication. This is the answer to the question “OK, how can you prove it?” When you present your identity to a system, the system wants you to prove that it is indeed you and not someone else. The system will challenge you, and you must respond in some way. Common authenticators include passwords, private keys, and PINs. Whereas identity is public, authentication is private: it’s a secret known (presumably) only by you. In some cases, like passwords, the system also knows the secret. In other cases, like PKI, the system doesn’t need to possess the secret, but can validate its authenticity (this is one of many reasons why PKI is superior). Your possession of this secret is what proves that you are who you claim to be...
Identity and authentication are distinct components of the steps necessary to use a secure computer system. Identity without authentication lacks proof; authentication without identity invalidates auditing and eliminates multi-user capability (consider Windows 95/98, which supported a password as an authenticator but no user ID). If biometrics become important to you as you begin considering how to strengthen identity and authentication in your security strategy, remember to evaluate how a particular biometric implementation views itself. Proper biometrics are identity only and will be accompanied, like all good identifiers, by a secret of some kind -- a PIN, a private key on a smart card, or, yes, even a password...
Now consider biometrics. Given the definitions and characteristics of identity and authentication, which is biometrics: identity or authentication?
Before we answer the question, think about the attributes of biometrics. Is it public or private? Public, of course. You leave various biometrics everywhere you go -- your fingerprints remain on anything you touch, your face is stored in countless surveillance systems, your retina patterns are known at least by your optometrist, perhaps. And it’s believed, although there is no actual evidence to support the claim, that biometrics are unique. (How would one prove it, other than examining the fingerprints and retinas of every single individual on the planet?) Given this, it follows that biometrics are identity, not authentication -- despite the claims of some vendors. "
Got that?
1. Identity is public.
2. Authentication is secret.
3. Biometrics are public so fall into the identity bucket.
William Heath has a question in the light of Steve Riley's lesson:
"If biometrics are public, why do we need to pay billions to have them compulsorily recorded and stored on a highly secure national server?"
The power and perils of dna databases
Toby Stevens has come to realise why he has always been worried about population wide dna databases but until now not been able to articulate his reasons.
"Where the real problems will arise is in the handling of minor offences. Based on a case given in the documentary, picture this scenario: your DNA was taken some years ago when the police accused you of some youthful vandalism, but no charge was pressed because the true culprit was identified after the arrest. At a later date, you are arrested for stealing mail because your DNA was found on a number of letters recovered from a skip. The police inform you that this is a minor offence in their opinion, and if you accept a caution they will not press matters. You refuse because you are innocent. Only later, after a lot of trouble, does it transpire that your DNA was on those letters because you had posted them yourself.
Now, if you had accepted the caution in order to gain release from police custody, the authorities would have given you a criminal record, and not investigated further, believing the case to be closed. This, I understand, is a common situation that is driven by 'policing by numbers' policies. Unfortunately many people do not understand the implications of a caution, believing it to be the equivalent of a friendly cuff round the ear from the village bobby when caught scrumping apples.
This scenario worries me a lot, and I now understand why I'm concerned about the collection of large numbers of DNA samples, particularly when there appears to be no clarity about how it might be used in the future."
"Where the real problems will arise is in the handling of minor offences. Based on a case given in the documentary, picture this scenario: your DNA was taken some years ago when the police accused you of some youthful vandalism, but no charge was pressed because the true culprit was identified after the arrest. At a later date, you are arrested for stealing mail because your DNA was found on a number of letters recovered from a skip. The police inform you that this is a minor offence in their opinion, and if you accept a caution they will not press matters. You refuse because you are innocent. Only later, after a lot of trouble, does it transpire that your DNA was on those letters because you had posted them yourself.
Now, if you had accepted the caution in order to gain release from police custody, the authorities would have given you a criminal record, and not investigated further, believing the case to be closed. This, I understand, is a common situation that is driven by 'policing by numbers' policies. Unfortunately many people do not understand the implications of a caution, believing it to be the equivalent of a friendly cuff round the ear from the village bobby when caught scrumping apples.
This scenario worries me a lot, and I now understand why I'm concerned about the collection of large numbers of DNA samples, particularly when there appears to be no clarity about how it might be used in the future."
RIAA object to drm bypass even if the drm endangers lives
Ed Felten is astonished at the big copyright owners objections to requests for DMCA exemptions.
"In light of the Sony-BMG CD incident, Alex and I asked the Copyright Office for an exemption allowing users to remove from their computers certain DRM software that causes security and privacy harm. The CCIA and Open Source and Industry Association made an even simpler request for an exemption for DRM systems that “employ access control measures which threaten critical infrastructure and potentially endanger lives.” Who could oppose that?
The BSA, RIAA, MPAA, and friends — that’s who. Their objections to these two requests (and others) consist mostly of lawyerly parsing, but at the end of their argument about our request comes this (from pp. 22-23 of the document, if you’re reading along at home):
Yikes...
And here’s the really amazing part. In order to protect their ability to deploy this dangerous DRM, they want the Copyright Office to withhold from users permission to uninstall DRM software that actually does threaten critical infrastructure and endanger lives."
"In light of the Sony-BMG CD incident, Alex and I asked the Copyright Office for an exemption allowing users to remove from their computers certain DRM software that causes security and privacy harm. The CCIA and Open Source and Industry Association made an even simpler request for an exemption for DRM systems that “employ access control measures which threaten critical infrastructure and potentially endanger lives.” Who could oppose that?
The BSA, RIAA, MPAA, and friends — that’s who. Their objections to these two requests (and others) consist mostly of lawyerly parsing, but at the end of their argument about our request comes this (from pp. 22-23 of the document, if you’re reading along at home):
Furthermore, the claimed beneficial impact of recognition of the exemption — that it would “provide an incentive for the creation of protection measures that respect the security of consumers’ computers while protecting the interests of the record labels” ([citation to our request]) — would be fundamentally undermined if copyright owners — and everyone else — were left in such serious doubt about which measures were or were not subject to circumvention under the exemption.Hanging from the end of the above-quoted excerpt is a footnote:
This uncertainty would be even more severe under the formulations proposed in submissions 2 (in which the terms “privacy or security” are left completely undefined) or 8 [i.e., the CCIA request] (in which the boundaries of the proposed exemption would turn on whether access controls “threaten critical infrastructure and potentially endanger lives”).You read that right. They’re worried that there might be “serious doubt” about whether their future DRM access control systems are covered by these exemptions, and they think the doubt “would be even more severe” if the “exemption would turn on whether access controls ‘threaten critical infrastructure and potentially endanger lives’.”
Yikes...
And here’s the really amazing part. In order to protect their ability to deploy this dangerous DRM, they want the Copyright Office to withhold from users permission to uninstall DRM software that actually does threaten critical infrastructure and endanger lives."
Privacy Issues and Canada’s Faith Communities
Privacy Issues and Canada’s Faith Communities essay by Travis Dumsday ON the Identity Trail.
"Broadly speaking, public policy issues have an unfortunate tendency to become ghettoised, with particular problems being championed by certain segments of society while being mostly ignored by other interest groups and society at large. Thus certain segments become associated in both public and official consciousness, rightly or wrongly, with certain issues. The aboriginal community for instance tends to be associated mostly with issues directly relevant to that community, such as the economic development of reservations, preservation of native languages, etc. I call this ghettoisation unfortunate partly because it can lead to an accompanying tendency on the part of government and media to ignore the community’s involvement and stake in other issues...
With that in mind, if someone asked you to write down a list of the issues of interest to Canadian religious communities, what would be the first item to pop into your mind? I realize that ‘Canadian religious communities’ is an exceedingly broad designating phrase, but humour me for a moment. What comes up first? Gay marriage? Abortion? Government funding of religious schools...
How about privacy? Would that enter anywhere on the radar screen? I suspect not...
Privacy is not seen as a ‘religious’ issue. But faith groups in this country are going to have to address some difficult questions relating to privacy in the near future, if they are not embroiled in them already.
In this context I think especially of the position of Canada’s Islamic community. If CSIS were to send undercover agents to attend services at mosques and monitor sermons given by Canadian Imams, in the hopes of spotting nascent terrorist sympathies or recruiting tactics, would this be a privacy violation?"
"Broadly speaking, public policy issues have an unfortunate tendency to become ghettoised, with particular problems being championed by certain segments of society while being mostly ignored by other interest groups and society at large. Thus certain segments become associated in both public and official consciousness, rightly or wrongly, with certain issues. The aboriginal community for instance tends to be associated mostly with issues directly relevant to that community, such as the economic development of reservations, preservation of native languages, etc. I call this ghettoisation unfortunate partly because it can lead to an accompanying tendency on the part of government and media to ignore the community’s involvement and stake in other issues...
With that in mind, if someone asked you to write down a list of the issues of interest to Canadian religious communities, what would be the first item to pop into your mind? I realize that ‘Canadian religious communities’ is an exceedingly broad designating phrase, but humour me for a moment. What comes up first? Gay marriage? Abortion? Government funding of religious schools...
How about privacy? Would that enter anywhere on the radar screen? I suspect not...
Privacy is not seen as a ‘religious’ issue. But faith groups in this country are going to have to address some difficult questions relating to privacy in the near future, if they are not embroiled in them already.
In this context I think especially of the position of Canada’s Islamic community. If CSIS were to send undercover agents to attend services at mosques and monitor sermons given by Canadian Imams, in the hopes of spotting nascent terrorist sympathies or recruiting tactics, would this be a privacy violation?"
US peer to patent project
This is interesting.
"There is work underway to create a peer review system for patents at the Peer-to-Patent Project. Led by Beth Noveck, the Director of the Institute for Law & Policy, the Project aims to design and pilot an online system for peer review and to support an advisory network to the Patent Office. The online system will incorporate social software, such as tools that faciliate for social reputation, collaborative filtering, and information visualization.
Why a peer to patent review process? "The patent system needs our help. The United States Patent Office is actively seeking ways to bring greater expertise to bear on the review of patent applications and ensure that only worthwhile inventions receive the patent monopoly. Currently, underpaid and overwhelmed examiners struggle under the backlog of applications. Under pressure to expedite review, patents for unmerited inventions are approved...." (To keep reading, click here)"
"There is work underway to create a peer review system for patents at the Peer-to-Patent Project. Led by Beth Noveck, the Director of the Institute for Law & Policy, the Project aims to design and pilot an online system for peer review and to support an advisory network to the Patent Office. The online system will incorporate social software, such as tools that faciliate for social reputation, collaborative filtering, and information visualization.
Why a peer to patent review process? "The patent system needs our help. The United States Patent Office is actively seeking ways to bring greater expertise to bear on the review of patent applications and ensure that only worthwhile inventions receive the patent monopoly. Currently, underpaid and overwhelmed examiners struggle under the backlog of applications. Under pressure to expedite review, patents for unmerited inventions are approved...." (To keep reading, click here)"
Universties impotent?
John Sutherland wonders how the university sector has become so impotent
"By defining themselves as a workforce, all those decades ago, university lecturers have found themselves in that most unenviable condition - a workforce without muscle and without powerful friends. They can be ignored, taken for granted, pushed about, hired and fired as the planners see fit.
Striking, without the power to wound, bruise, or - most importantly - be taken notice of on the national stage, is a gesture of impotence. The "action" is misnamed. It is a cry of pain. It's also a crying shame, because the cause is right. But you won't see that in the papers."
"By defining themselves as a workforce, all those decades ago, university lecturers have found themselves in that most unenviable condition - a workforce without muscle and without powerful friends. They can be ignored, taken for granted, pushed about, hired and fired as the planners see fit.
Striking, without the power to wound, bruise, or - most importantly - be taken notice of on the national stage, is a gesture of impotence. The "action" is misnamed. It is a cry of pain. It's also a crying shame, because the cause is right. But you won't see that in the papers."
Katrina and human rights
Noah Leavitt thinks the US government's failures to respond adequately to support those seriously affected by hurricane Katrina should be viewed as a humand rights disaster. Actually a UN independent expert on human rights who went into the disaster area in the immediate aftermath said as much in his report last November but no one took much notice.
"Last week, almost six months to the day after Hurricane Katrina devastated America's southern coastline, the Associated Press released a shocking video. The footage shows President Bush being briefed, point-by-point, about the almost certain likelihood that the levees around New Orleans would not withstand the storm and the city would be flooded. At no time did the President ask any questions about the information provided to him.
The interaction captured in the video directly contradicted the President's frequent assertions that had he known the extent of the risk, his government would have taken steps to prevent the massive disasters that followed.
Originally, the Administration's failure to act effectively to address the consequences of the storm was seen, in part as a lapse in judgment or an administrative blunder. But after the video was released, views on the Administration's - and in particular, the President's - state of mind changed dramatically. After seeing the footage, some Congresspersons called for further inquiries into the federal government's failure to assist the tens of thousands of people in dangerous and often desperate circumstances. Others suggested opening criminal investigations.
Yet, the video suggests another possible way of analyzing the government's failures - that its abysmal performance after the flooding violates international obligations - as established in treaties and other binding law that the U.S. has agreed to uphold, and has urged other nations to uphold.
As I will explain, understanding this issue as a breach of human rights is critical, for a number of reasons. It has led to new strategies for relief and redress, and it has brought the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights into the picture...
Oxfam International recently reported that almost 750,000 people remain displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And a situation that in theory, ought to be improving daily as the government addresses it, is only getting worse for many: More than 7,000 people are facing imminent evictions despite the fact that they do not have adequate housing replacement.
Thus, there is a third area in which international norms can be meaningful - that of "Internally Displaced Persons" (IDPs).
International law defines IDPs as people forced to leave their homes because of natural disaster, domestic strife or other such problems, and who have not crossed international borders. (This last requirement distinguishes them from refugees, who cross international borders fleeing persecution.)
Because of the large number of IDPs around the world, the UN has approved Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement that delineate states' obligations to IDPs within their borders.
Since as early as July 2001, the U.S. has said that all countries should apply the norms set forth under these Principles, and has authorized its U.S. Agency for International Development policies to do so.
Yet, the White House is now ignoring that commitment. For example, Principle 18 states that IDPs have a right to basic shelter, housing, and medical care, and that they must fully participate in decisions regarding their future in partnership with "competent authorities." Yet, the federal government callously ended payments for evacuees' temporary hotel stays without providing any alternative arrangements, and before the evacuees were able to get on their feet...
International human rights norms, including obligations the U.S. has stated it approves and will abide by, provide another avenue for understanding the failure to adequately respond last year. Calling upon the U.S. to comply is only calling upon it to do what it calls upon other countries to do: The U.S., rather than being a human rights beacon in the world, increasingly claims exceptions to the rules it says everyone else must follow. Unlike with imprisoned detainees, with Katrina victims, the rights violations are often out in the open, for everyone to see - in the form of suffering people, and, too often, corpses."
"Last week, almost six months to the day after Hurricane Katrina devastated America's southern coastline, the Associated Press released a shocking video. The footage shows President Bush being briefed, point-by-point, about the almost certain likelihood that the levees around New Orleans would not withstand the storm and the city would be flooded. At no time did the President ask any questions about the information provided to him.
The interaction captured in the video directly contradicted the President's frequent assertions that had he known the extent of the risk, his government would have taken steps to prevent the massive disasters that followed.
Originally, the Administration's failure to act effectively to address the consequences of the storm was seen, in part as a lapse in judgment or an administrative blunder. But after the video was released, views on the Administration's - and in particular, the President's - state of mind changed dramatically. After seeing the footage, some Congresspersons called for further inquiries into the federal government's failure to assist the tens of thousands of people in dangerous and often desperate circumstances. Others suggested opening criminal investigations.
Yet, the video suggests another possible way of analyzing the government's failures - that its abysmal performance after the flooding violates international obligations - as established in treaties and other binding law that the U.S. has agreed to uphold, and has urged other nations to uphold.
As I will explain, understanding this issue as a breach of human rights is critical, for a number of reasons. It has led to new strategies for relief and redress, and it has brought the United Nations and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights into the picture...
Oxfam International recently reported that almost 750,000 people remain displaced by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. And a situation that in theory, ought to be improving daily as the government addresses it, is only getting worse for many: More than 7,000 people are facing imminent evictions despite the fact that they do not have adequate housing replacement.
Thus, there is a third area in which international norms can be meaningful - that of "Internally Displaced Persons" (IDPs).
International law defines IDPs as people forced to leave their homes because of natural disaster, domestic strife or other such problems, and who have not crossed international borders. (This last requirement distinguishes them from refugees, who cross international borders fleeing persecution.)
Because of the large number of IDPs around the world, the UN has approved Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement that delineate states' obligations to IDPs within their borders.
Since as early as July 2001, the U.S. has said that all countries should apply the norms set forth under these Principles, and has authorized its U.S. Agency for International Development policies to do so.
Yet, the White House is now ignoring that commitment. For example, Principle 18 states that IDPs have a right to basic shelter, housing, and medical care, and that they must fully participate in decisions regarding their future in partnership with "competent authorities." Yet, the federal government callously ended payments for evacuees' temporary hotel stays without providing any alternative arrangements, and before the evacuees were able to get on their feet...
International human rights norms, including obligations the U.S. has stated it approves and will abide by, provide another avenue for understanding the failure to adequately respond last year. Calling upon the U.S. to comply is only calling upon it to do what it calls upon other countries to do: The U.S., rather than being a human rights beacon in the world, increasingly claims exceptions to the rules it says everyone else must follow. Unlike with imprisoned detainees, with Katrina victims, the rights violations are often out in the open, for everyone to see - in the form of suffering people, and, too often, corpses."
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
USACM Policy Statement on DRM
Ed Felten has posted a new USACM policy statement on drm on his blog. He helped to draft it.
Heading towards a totalitarian state
The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, Henry Porter believes, will move us ever closer to becoming a totalitarian state.
Doctors attack online recruitment systems
From the BBC: "A new online application system for junior doctor posts is harming the job prospects of many top students, more than 80 senior doctors have warned.
The Modernising Medical Careers system scraps interviews in favour of points scoring from application forms answers."
One of my jobs at the Open University is recruiting and supporting associate lecturers. As a senior lecturer in technology and given their current stage of evolution I would not trust a system like this to do my selection. You should not use technology as a substitute for putting people in touch with people.
The Modernising Medical Careers system scraps interviews in favour of points scoring from application forms answers."
One of my jobs at the Open University is recruiting and supporting associate lecturers. As a senior lecturer in technology and given their current stage of evolution I would not trust a system like this to do my selection. You should not use technology as a substitute for putting people in touch with people.
Friday, March 03, 2006
A terrorist statistic writes
Andrew Brown was stopped and searched at Liverpool Street Station.
"Finally, they gave me a pink copy of the report he had made when searching me. I should show this to other officers, he said, if they stopped me, and I wouldn't have any trouble. At this point I let myself go a little. Wasn't this ridiculous? I said. Just because a terrorist had been searched once with a rucksack that was innocent didn't mean that he wouldn't have important terrorist supplies, maps or even worse, the next time he passed a policeman. If he could show a pink slip and get away, wouldn't this just encourage him? The policeman looked at me without affection or enjoyment. Any other policeman, he said, would be entirely free to search me even if I had a pink slip. And so I went to catch my train, greatly reassured.
The two things they never asked me were where I was going (and coming from) and what was my business. I do regret this. I would have liked to have watched their faces when I said that I had come from the BBC studios in Millbank, where I was making a radio programme on the Government's plans to deal with Islamic extremism, and that the next person I will interview is Assistant Chief Constable Robert Beckley, a member of the ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters team. But perhaps they will stop me again on Thursday, when I go in to see him."
Read the whole thing.
"Finally, they gave me a pink copy of the report he had made when searching me. I should show this to other officers, he said, if they stopped me, and I wouldn't have any trouble. At this point I let myself go a little. Wasn't this ridiculous? I said. Just because a terrorist had been searched once with a rucksack that was innocent didn't mean that he wouldn't have important terrorist supplies, maps or even worse, the next time he passed a policeman. If he could show a pink slip and get away, wouldn't this just encourage him? The policeman looked at me without affection or enjoyment. Any other policeman, he said, would be entirely free to search me even if I had a pink slip. And so I went to catch my train, greatly reassured.
The two things they never asked me were where I was going (and coming from) and what was my business. I do regret this. I would have liked to have watched their faces when I said that I had come from the BBC studios in Millbank, where I was making a radio programme on the Government's plans to deal with Islamic extremism, and that the next person I will interview is Assistant Chief Constable Robert Beckley, a member of the ACPO Terrorism and Allied Matters team. But perhaps they will stop me again on Thursday, when I go in to see him."
Read the whole thing.
Felten on the nuts and bolts of network discrimination
Ed Felten has a nice post on his blog on the nuts and bolts of network discrimination which shows why he's such a good teacher.
"Think of the Internet as a set of routers (think: metal boxes with electronics inside) connected by links (think: long wires). Packets of data get passed from one router to another, via links. A packet is forwarded from router to router, until it arrives at its destination.
Focus now on a single router. It has several incoming links on which packets arrive, and several outgoing links on which it can send packets. When a packet shows up on an incoming link, the router will figure out (by methods I won’t describe here) on which outgoing link the packet should be forwarded. If that outgoing link is free, the packet can be sent out on it immediately. But if the outgoing link is busy transmitting another packet, the newly arrived packet will have to wait — it will be “buffered” in the router’s memory, waiting its turn until the outgoing link is free.
Buffering lets the router deal with temporary surges in traffic. But if packets keep showing up faster than they can be sent out on some outgoing link, the number of buffered packets will grow and grow, and eventually the router will run out of buffer memory.
At that point, if one more packet shows up, the router has no choice but to discard a packet...
one type of network discrimination, which prioritizes packets and discards low-priority packets first, but only discards packets when that is absolutely necessary. I’ll call it minimal discrimination, because it only discriminates when it can’t serve everybody.
With minimal discrimination, if the network is not crowded, lots of low-priority packets can get through. Only when there is an unavoidable conflict with high-priority packets is a low-priority packet inconvenienced.
Contrast this with another, more drastic form of discrimination, which discards some low-priority packets even when it is possible to forward or deliver every packet. A network might, for example, limit low-priority packets to 20% of the network’s capacity, even if part of the other 80% is idle. I’ll call this non-minimal discrimination.
One of the basic questions to ask about any network discrimination regime is whether it is minimal in this sense. And one of the basic questions to ask about any rule limiting discrimination is how it applies to minimal versus non-minimal discrimination. We can imagine a rule, for example, that allows minimal discrimination but limits or bans non-minimal discrimination.
This distinction matters, I think, because minimal and non-minimal discrimination are supported by different arguments. Minimal discrimination may be an engineering necessity. But non-minimal discrimination is not technologically necessary — it makes service worse for low-priority packets, but doesn’t help high-priority packets — so it could only be justified by a more complicated economic argument"
Excellent.
"Think of the Internet as a set of routers (think: metal boxes with electronics inside) connected by links (think: long wires). Packets of data get passed from one router to another, via links. A packet is forwarded from router to router, until it arrives at its destination.
Focus now on a single router. It has several incoming links on which packets arrive, and several outgoing links on which it can send packets. When a packet shows up on an incoming link, the router will figure out (by methods I won’t describe here) on which outgoing link the packet should be forwarded. If that outgoing link is free, the packet can be sent out on it immediately. But if the outgoing link is busy transmitting another packet, the newly arrived packet will have to wait — it will be “buffered” in the router’s memory, waiting its turn until the outgoing link is free.
Buffering lets the router deal with temporary surges in traffic. But if packets keep showing up faster than they can be sent out on some outgoing link, the number of buffered packets will grow and grow, and eventually the router will run out of buffer memory.
At that point, if one more packet shows up, the router has no choice but to discard a packet...
one type of network discrimination, which prioritizes packets and discards low-priority packets first, but only discards packets when that is absolutely necessary. I’ll call it minimal discrimination, because it only discriminates when it can’t serve everybody.
With minimal discrimination, if the network is not crowded, lots of low-priority packets can get through. Only when there is an unavoidable conflict with high-priority packets is a low-priority packet inconvenienced.
Contrast this with another, more drastic form of discrimination, which discards some low-priority packets even when it is possible to forward or deliver every packet. A network might, for example, limit low-priority packets to 20% of the network’s capacity, even if part of the other 80% is idle. I’ll call this non-minimal discrimination.
One of the basic questions to ask about any network discrimination regime is whether it is minimal in this sense. And one of the basic questions to ask about any rule limiting discrimination is how it applies to minimal versus non-minimal discrimination. We can imagine a rule, for example, that allows minimal discrimination but limits or bans non-minimal discrimination.
This distinction matters, I think, because minimal and non-minimal discrimination are supported by different arguments. Minimal discrimination may be an engineering necessity. But non-minimal discrimination is not technologically necessary — it makes service worse for low-priority packets, but doesn’t help high-priority packets — so it could only be justified by a more complicated economic argument"
Excellent.
Open Document Format Alliance
From the NYT:
"With government records, reports and documents increasingly being created and stored in digital form, there is a software threat to electronic access to government information and archives. The problem is that public information can be locked in proprietary software whose document formats become obsolete or cannot be read by people using software from another company.
To cope with the problem, 30 companies, trade groups, academic institutions and professional organizations are announcing today the formation of the OpenDocument Format Alliance, which will promote the adoption of open technology standards by governments."
"With government records, reports and documents increasingly being created and stored in digital form, there is a software threat to electronic access to government information and archives. The problem is that public information can be locked in proprietary software whose document formats become obsolete or cannot be read by people using software from another company.
To cope with the problem, 30 companies, trade groups, academic institutions and professional organizations are announcing today the formation of the OpenDocument Format Alliance, which will promote the adoption of open technology standards by governments."
Cornell blog and the lawyer's letter
Cornell blog has received a letter from Thomas W. Bruce, Vice President for University Communications,Cornell University, advising that the blog "remove the name Cornell University from the name of your blog and website at cornell.elliottback.com. While we appreciate your hosting a forum in which Cornell news and events can be discussed, your use of the words Cornell University on the blog is confusing and can easily be misinterpreted to mean that the blog is maintained and/or sanctioned by the university. In fact, neither is the case.
Cornell University is a trademarked name and can only be used with the permission of the university. More specifically your use of the Cornell University name in this manner is unauthorized, misleading, and in violation of Section 397 of the General Business Law of the State of New York."
Rather strange, since the blog has nothing but positive things to say about the university, until now and it's unlikely to be confused with the official university site. Maybe someone whispered 'trademark dilution' in this vice president's ear? Though I'd need a lawyer to advise on the real chances of that.
Cornell University is a trademarked name and can only be used with the permission of the university. More specifically your use of the Cornell University name in this manner is unauthorized, misleading, and in violation of Section 397 of the General Business Law of the State of New York."
Rather strange, since the blog has nothing but positive things to say about the university, until now and it's unlikely to be confused with the official university site. Maybe someone whispered 'trademark dilution' in this vice president's ear? Though I'd need a lawyer to advise on the real chances of that.
Pam Samuelson's class
Professor Pamela Samuelson's Technology and Intellectual Property in Law class lectures are now freely available on the Web. Isn't technology great?!
Attack is the best form of defence
Your have to admire the sheer brass neck of the Microsoft legal team in their tactics to hold EU regulators at bay. The latest trick, just as the EU are about to start levying the long delayed fines for monopolistic behaviour, is to accuse the EU regulators of secretly colluding with Microsoft's competitors. There's very little that bothers administrators so much as the thought that they might have broken their own rules. I expect Microsoft are hoping for them to go into a huddle, set up another investigation into the complaints and further postpone the need for the company to pay those outstanding fines. The game could go on indefinitely. Some might suggest it already has.
Update: EU bite back.
Update: EU bite back.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
UK parents to get online check of 8m child workers records
John Lettice is less than impressed with the UK government's latest planned big database.
"The UK Government today announces plans for a massive data, security and privacy own goal, in the shape of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. The Bill, which is intended to widen and centralise the vetting of people working with children (approximately 8 million individuals), will allow (indeed, compel) employers, including parents hiring nannies and childminders, to check the records of potential employees online.
The production of the centralised (with "real time" updating) list will be a mega IT challenge of itself. Several overlapping lists (including List 99 for education, the Sex Offenders Register and the Protection of Children Act lists) currently exist, and the task of merging them leaves plenty of scope for the usual delays and disasters...
Some considerable time will however elapse before the new converged, real-time register of everything ships. The DfES tells us that would be employees "will apply to the CRB [Criminal Records Bureau] for a vetting and barring report. The police will provide the CRB with relevant information, including convictions and cautions so that the new independent body can make a barring decision... Applications will start the process of continuous monitoring of police information about the individual, allowing the barring decision to be changed if any new information comes to light."
The "new independent body" will be a panel set up to take the blame, er, make the decisions over who is on the list and who is not. Its ability to do so, however, hinges on the police's ability to supply the "relevant information" and to keep it up to date in real time. In order to do this, the police need to have the IMPACT (Information Management, Prioritisation, Analysis, Co-ordination and Tasking) police information sharing programme fully implemented, and this (see Spy Blog for analysis (http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2005/11/bichard_inquiry_recommendation.html)) was recently put back from 2007 to 2010. "
Update: Further details at Spy Blog.
"The UK Government today announces plans for a massive data, security and privacy own goal, in the shape of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. The Bill, which is intended to widen and centralise the vetting of people working with children (approximately 8 million individuals), will allow (indeed, compel) employers, including parents hiring nannies and childminders, to check the records of potential employees online.
The production of the centralised (with "real time" updating) list will be a mega IT challenge of itself. Several overlapping lists (including List 99 for education, the Sex Offenders Register and the Protection of Children Act lists) currently exist, and the task of merging them leaves plenty of scope for the usual delays and disasters...
Some considerable time will however elapse before the new converged, real-time register of everything ships. The DfES tells us that would be employees "will apply to the CRB [Criminal Records Bureau] for a vetting and barring report. The police will provide the CRB with relevant information, including convictions and cautions so that the new independent body can make a barring decision... Applications will start the process of continuous monitoring of police information about the individual, allowing the barring decision to be changed if any new information comes to light."
The "new independent body" will be a panel set up to take the blame, er, make the decisions over who is on the list and who is not. Its ability to do so, however, hinges on the police's ability to supply the "relevant information" and to keep it up to date in real time. In order to do this, the police need to have the IMPACT (Information Management, Prioritisation, Analysis, Co-ordination and Tasking) police information sharing programme fully implemented, and this (see Spy Blog for analysis (http://www.spy.org.uk/spyblog/2005/11/bichard_inquiry_recommendation.html)) was recently put back from 2007 to 2010. "
Update: Further details at Spy Blog.
EDPS urges caution on police information exchange
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) wants the exchange of police information to be introduced more cautiously:
"The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has issued an Opinion on the proposal for a framework decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability. Introduced by the Hague program, the principle of availability means that information that is available to law enforcement authorities in one Member State should also be made accessible for equivalent authorities in other Member States. The principle raises a number of data protection issues, notably because of the sensitivity of the data and the reduced control of the use of the information."
"The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) has issued an Opinion on the proposal for a framework decision on the exchange of information under the principle of availability. Introduced by the Hague program, the principle of availability means that information that is available to law enforcement authorities in one Member State should also be made accessible for equivalent authorities in other Member States. The principle raises a number of data protection issues, notably because of the sensitivity of the data and the reduced control of the use of the information."
EU sketches out plan for Internet library
THE EU Commission are continuing to work on plans for a European digital library.
There's an FAQ available at Europa.
There's an FAQ available at Europa.
The big DRM mistake
Excellent article, The big DRM mistake by Scott Granneman at Security Focus.
"Digital Rights Managements hurts paying customers, destroys Fair Use rights, renders customers' investments worthless, and can always be defeated. Why are consumers and publishers being forced to use DRM?
One of my favorite magazines is The New Yorker...When it was announced over a year ago that The Complete New Yorker: Eighty Years of the Nation's Greatest Magazine would be released on eight DVDs, I immediately put in my pre-order. After it arrived, I took out the first DVD and stuck it in my Linux box, expecting that I could start looking at the collected issues.
No dice. The issues were available as DjVu files. No problem; there are DjVu readers for Linux, and it's an open format. Yet none of them worked. It turned out that The New Yorker added DRM to their DjVu files, turning an open format into a closed, proprietary, encrypted format, and forcing consumers to install the special viewer software included on the first DVD. Of course, that software only works on Windows or Mac OS X, so Linux users are out of luck (and no, it doesn't work under WINE ... believe me, I tried)...
The final indignity is that, although other DjVu readers provide for text selection, The New Yorker has removed that feature from its DjVu reader. You can print, but you can't select or copy. As a teacher of several technology courses at Washington University in St. Louis, this limitation, frankly, completely sucks. Suppose I want my students to read ten paragraphs from a New Yorker story that I provide on a password-protected web page. Too bad! I want to copy and paste some sentences into a presentation? Nope! A student expresses an interest in a topic, and I want to send her a New Yorker article via email that would help further her education? No can do.
I finally got so frustrated that I decided to break through The New Yorker's limitations and DRM...
t turns out that it's entirely possible to copy all the DVDs to your hard drive and then make one simple change in the SQLite database. The result? The slow-as-a-turtle, multi-DVD-swapping The New Yorker turns into super-duper fast The New Yorker. Ta-da!"
The whole piece is well worth a read.
"Digital Rights Managements hurts paying customers, destroys Fair Use rights, renders customers' investments worthless, and can always be defeated. Why are consumers and publishers being forced to use DRM?
One of my favorite magazines is The New Yorker...When it was announced over a year ago that The Complete New Yorker: Eighty Years of the Nation's Greatest Magazine would be released on eight DVDs, I immediately put in my pre-order. After it arrived, I took out the first DVD and stuck it in my Linux box, expecting that I could start looking at the collected issues.
No dice. The issues were available as DjVu files. No problem; there are DjVu readers for Linux, and it's an open format. Yet none of them worked. It turned out that The New Yorker added DRM to their DjVu files, turning an open format into a closed, proprietary, encrypted format, and forcing consumers to install the special viewer software included on the first DVD. Of course, that software only works on Windows or Mac OS X, so Linux users are out of luck (and no, it doesn't work under WINE ... believe me, I tried)...
The final indignity is that, although other DjVu readers provide for text selection, The New Yorker has removed that feature from its DjVu reader. You can print, but you can't select or copy. As a teacher of several technology courses at Washington University in St. Louis, this limitation, frankly, completely sucks. Suppose I want my students to read ten paragraphs from a New Yorker story that I provide on a password-protected web page. Too bad! I want to copy and paste some sentences into a presentation? Nope! A student expresses an interest in a topic, and I want to send her a New Yorker article via email that would help further her education? No can do.
I finally got so frustrated that I decided to break through The New Yorker's limitations and DRM...
t turns out that it's entirely possible to copy all the DVDs to your hard drive and then make one simple change in the SQLite database. The result? The slow-as-a-turtle, multi-DVD-swapping The New Yorker turns into super-duper fast The New Yorker. Ta-da!"
The whole piece is well worth a read.
We must stand up to the creeping tyranny of the group veto
Timothy Garton Ash writing in today's Guardian:We must stand up to the creeping tyranny of the group veto "
He says the "arguments around animal rights, Danish cartoons, Livingstone and Irving have more in common than you think" and starts with the recent anti-animal rights protests in Oxford.
"For a few minutes, Mansfield Road, Oxford, was at the front line of a new struggle for freedom that is being fought in many different places and guises. These days, the main threats to freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of association no longer come from the totalitarian ideological superstate that inspired George Orwell to write his 1984... the distinctive feature of this new danger is the creeping tyranny of the group veto.
Here the animal rights campaign has something in common with the extremist reaction to the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, as seen in the attacks on Danish embassies. In both cases, a particular group says: "We feel so strongly about this that we are going to do everything we can to stop it. We recognise no moral limits...
If the intimidators succeed, then the lesson for any group that strongly believes in anything is: shout more loudly, be more extreme, threaten violence, and you will get your way."
Sad but true.
He says the "arguments around animal rights, Danish cartoons, Livingstone and Irving have more in common than you think" and starts with the recent anti-animal rights protests in Oxford.
"For a few minutes, Mansfield Road, Oxford, was at the front line of a new struggle for freedom that is being fought in many different places and guises. These days, the main threats to freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of association no longer come from the totalitarian ideological superstate that inspired George Orwell to write his 1984... the distinctive feature of this new danger is the creeping tyranny of the group veto.
Here the animal rights campaign has something in common with the extremist reaction to the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, as seen in the attacks on Danish embassies. In both cases, a particular group says: "We feel so strongly about this that we are going to do everything we can to stop it. We recognise no moral limits...
If the intimidators succeed, then the lesson for any group that strongly believes in anything is: shout more loudly, be more extreme, threaten violence, and you will get your way."
Sad but true.
A bit of BitTorrent bother
BBC Newsnight producer, Adam Livingstone, has had some grief over a script line in the programme last Friday saying that filesharing was theft.
"File sharing is not theft. It has never been theft. Anyone who says it is theft is wrong and has unthinkingly absorbed too many Recording Industry Association of America press releases. We know that script line was wrong. It was a mistake. We're very, very sorry.
If copyright infringement was theft then I'd be in jail every time I accidentally used football pix on Newsnight without putting "Pictures from Sky Sport" in the top left corner of the screen. And I'm not. So it isn't. So you can stop telling us if you like. We hear you.
Railways and canals
Now we've got that out the way, let us ask you a question. Why is it that every time the media starts to talk about the internet they feel compelled to bang on about paedophiles and terrorists and generally come over like a cross between Joe McCarthy and the Childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?
Well here's one answer - it sells copy. Another answer is that we're totally scared of new media, because new media is railways and we're canals, and you all just know how that's going to end.
So we seek to equate the internet with all bad things to scare you off it. At some corporate freudian level, there's some truth to that accusation. "
It's quite an amusing piece. Worth a read.
"File sharing is not theft. It has never been theft. Anyone who says it is theft is wrong and has unthinkingly absorbed too many Recording Industry Association of America press releases. We know that script line was wrong. It was a mistake. We're very, very sorry.
If copyright infringement was theft then I'd be in jail every time I accidentally used football pix on Newsnight without putting "Pictures from Sky Sport" in the top left corner of the screen. And I'm not. So it isn't. So you can stop telling us if you like. We hear you.
Railways and canals
Now we've got that out the way, let us ask you a question. Why is it that every time the media starts to talk about the internet they feel compelled to bang on about paedophiles and terrorists and generally come over like a cross between Joe McCarthy and the Childcatcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?
Well here's one answer - it sells copy. Another answer is that we're totally scared of new media, because new media is railways and we're canals, and you all just know how that's going to end.
So we seek to equate the internet with all bad things to scare you off it. At some corporate freudian level, there's some truth to that accusation. "
It's quite an amusing piece. Worth a read.
Downloading Empathy to Your iPod
From the Washington Post Downloading Empathy to Your iPod, an article on the way people are sharing iTunes playlists and how it could be seen as a form of expression.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
French Supreme Court oks drm
The French Supreme Court has overturned an Appeal Court decision which effectively blocked the implementation of drm because it interfered with private copying.
Ending the Tyranny of the Link
Frode Hegland has an interesting idea. He reckons it is time for the Web to move on from hyperlinks.
"Web links are curious things, they are actually addresses but they are called links. This is not just semantics, it’s important: A link has two ends, hence it links two things (or more). But web links only have one end, and that end is an address saying ‘go to this computer and this directory and that file’. That is an address, a pointer. The file pointed to doesn’t even need to exist...
But links required the author to know what links would be useful to the reader and it did not allow the reader to create links or connections on the fly.
The reader was forced to follow the links, or spend time copying text, going to other sites, such as search engines or dictionaries and pasting the text, then waiting for the results.
Additionally, once the author decides to make a link, the author can only make the link go to one place. The author cannot make the link go to multiple destinations. For example, a link to a politicians name, should that go to the official page for that politician, to a page on voter records, or maybe to news about the politician?
a different perspective
Instead of making a few words special and interactive, instead of making the author have to decide on all the useful navigation options, why not make all the words interactive?
Instead of special hyperlinks, why not also have all the word become (for want of a better name) ‘hyperwords’?
an approach
Hyperwords would allow users to interact with any text in many ways. For example, select text and search the web, search for people or search for information about the page they are viewing.
Or look up references like Wikipedia, dictionaries and so on. This could be considered ‘implicit’ links - a word is always implicitly linked to its entry in the dictionary for example.
Different dimensions of the text should be accessible, such as the map of a place, perhaps even the local time right now and the temperature. Why not?
How about translations, of full pages or or single words or snippets of text, why can that not be within a the reach of a single click, as quick as a pre-made, hand-made link?
Other commands, like shopping should also be available. And many more than I can think of.
Why should the world wide web be limited to the authors simple links? Why should it be limited to software designers browser controls?
For that matter, why should it be limited to the imagination of the designers of the extension designed to make Hyperwords real?
Other interactions could be useful, such as printing, blogging about, tagging or emailing a chunk of text, complete with attribution, quickly and easily, with a single click."
And there is a team of folks in Silicon Valley, including Frode Hegland, who seem to have built a beta model for us to try out.
"Web links are curious things, they are actually addresses but they are called links. This is not just semantics, it’s important: A link has two ends, hence it links two things (or more). But web links only have one end, and that end is an address saying ‘go to this computer and this directory and that file’. That is an address, a pointer. The file pointed to doesn’t even need to exist...
But links required the author to know what links would be useful to the reader and it did not allow the reader to create links or connections on the fly.
The reader was forced to follow the links, or spend time copying text, going to other sites, such as search engines or dictionaries and pasting the text, then waiting for the results.
Additionally, once the author decides to make a link, the author can only make the link go to one place. The author cannot make the link go to multiple destinations. For example, a link to a politicians name, should that go to the official page for that politician, to a page on voter records, or maybe to news about the politician?
a different perspective
Instead of making a few words special and interactive, instead of making the author have to decide on all the useful navigation options, why not make all the words interactive?
Instead of special hyperlinks, why not also have all the word become (for want of a better name) ‘hyperwords’?
an approach
Hyperwords would allow users to interact with any text in many ways. For example, select text and search the web, search for people or search for information about the page they are viewing.
Or look up references like Wikipedia, dictionaries and so on. This could be considered ‘implicit’ links - a word is always implicitly linked to its entry in the dictionary for example.
Different dimensions of the text should be accessible, such as the map of a place, perhaps even the local time right now and the temperature. Why not?
How about translations, of full pages or or single words or snippets of text, why can that not be within a the reach of a single click, as quick as a pre-made, hand-made link?
Other commands, like shopping should also be available. And many more than I can think of.
Why should the world wide web be limited to the authors simple links? Why should it be limited to software designers browser controls?
For that matter, why should it be limited to the imagination of the designers of the extension designed to make Hyperwords real?
Other interactions could be useful, such as printing, blogging about, tagging or emailing a chunk of text, complete with attribution, quickly and easily, with a single click."
And there is a team of folks in Silicon Valley, including Frode Hegland, who seem to have built a beta model for us to try out.
Expectation vectors
Susan Crawford suggests that consumer expectation, or what she calls 'expectation vectors' are probably not the best guides when considering policies on copyright and privacy in the knowledge society.
The Lion, the Witch, and Linux
From NewsForge,
"Walden Media, the company that produced The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, wanted a community-driven Web site that would encourage discussion and collaboration on the educational products related to its movies. After considering the options, Walden Media chose Liferay's MIT-licensed open source content management system (CMS), running on Linux.
Walden Media says its movie ideas spring from "compelling source material," such as classic literature and worthwhile true stories. The company is responsible for producing movies like Holes, Because of Winn-Dixie, and most recently, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Though they turn out good movies, what makes Walden unique is its in-house education team that works with educators around the country to develop movie-related curricula such as activity guides, discussion topics, and "enhanced" DVDs."
"Walden Media, the company that produced The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, wanted a community-driven Web site that would encourage discussion and collaboration on the educational products related to its movies. After considering the options, Walden Media chose Liferay's MIT-licensed open source content management system (CMS), running on Linux.
Walden Media says its movie ideas spring from "compelling source material," such as classic literature and worthwhile true stories. The company is responsible for producing movies like Holes, Because of Winn-Dixie, and most recently, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. Though they turn out good movies, what makes Walden unique is its in-house education team that works with educators around the country to develop movie-related curricula such as activity guides, discussion topics, and "enhanced" DVDs."
Government go ahead for compulsory water meters
Contrary to its fiece opposition to the idea when, long ago, it was in opposition, the Labour government have now given the go ahead to a water company in Kent to force 65,000 householders to install water meters.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
The more I learn about the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill the more it concerns me. There is a case to be made for more effective legislative decision making processes. But there must absolutely be proper scrutiny of legislative proposals by parliament. Giving ministers and other officials, of whatever political persuasion, the power to make it up as they go along and when they feel like it, to amend any legislation, is just plain daft. Even the brightest, most well intentioned politician gets it wrong occasionally.
Michael Smyth and Patricia Barratt of law firm Clifford Chance are amongst those who have also expressed concern about the proposals.
Typically the bill is being sold by the government as a way of cutting through unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy but as usual we should be paying attention to the small print which says something completely different. Sadly, as usual the sales speak is proving persuasive even in the case of those who should know better.
David Frost, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), has said:
"We welcome this Bill which could represent a major step forward in the drive to reduce the burden of regulation on British businesses. Complicated and costly regulation is one of the main barriers to business growth, especially for smaller companies. The new measures in this Bill are long overdue.
“This legislation must equip Parliament with the power to scrap costly and burdensome regulation so that businesses can be free to grow and succeed. “This Bill needs to make a real difference to employers in the day to day operation of their business. "
Well you can be sure it will make a difference to business. Ministers with the power to change any law, without the tedious process of having to shepherd their ideas through parliament, and under pressure to stimulate headline writers, just won't be able to resist their infinite numbers of opportunitites to "make a difference." It'll be the kid in a sweet shop syndrome. And if you think government interferes too much with business now, just wait until a flurry of eager ministers are let loose in this particular legislative sweetshop.
Thanks to EU Serf for the links.
Michael Smyth and Patricia Barratt of law firm Clifford Chance are amongst those who have also expressed concern about the proposals.
Typically the bill is being sold by the government as a way of cutting through unnecessary red tape and bureaucracy but as usual we should be paying attention to the small print which says something completely different. Sadly, as usual the sales speak is proving persuasive even in the case of those who should know better.
David Frost, Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), has said:
"We welcome this Bill which could represent a major step forward in the drive to reduce the burden of regulation on British businesses. Complicated and costly regulation is one of the main barriers to business growth, especially for smaller companies. The new measures in this Bill are long overdue.
“This legislation must equip Parliament with the power to scrap costly and burdensome regulation so that businesses can be free to grow and succeed. “This Bill needs to make a real difference to employers in the day to day operation of their business. "
Well you can be sure it will make a difference to business. Ministers with the power to change any law, without the tedious process of having to shepherd their ideas through parliament, and under pressure to stimulate headline writers, just won't be able to resist their infinite numbers of opportunitites to "make a difference." It'll be the kid in a sweet shop syndrome. And if you think government interferes too much with business now, just wait until a flurry of eager ministers are let loose in this particular legislative sweetshop.
Thanks to EU Serf for the links.
Lords reject "glorifying terrorism" clause again
The House of Lords has, very sensibly, yet again rejected the UK government's proposal to outlaw the "glorification of terrorism." The vote was fairly close, as before, 160 to 156 but it means that the government have to convince MPs to overturn the Lords opposition to this again.
Biopiracy
The Brazilian Ambassador for the UK has a letter in the Independent this morning praising the paper for including an article on African bio-resources exploited by the West:
"The silent disease of biopiracy
Sir: I congratulate Andrew Buncombe for the article "African bio-resources 'exploited by West' " (17 February). It greatly contributes to raise public awareness on the deleterious effects of biopiracy, a serious environmental offence that affects every biodiversity-rich country in the world.
Biopiracy is like a silent disease: it is hardly detectable, it frequently does not leave traces and is an elusive activity perpetrated and oft abetted by many well-known multinational companies. Unfortunately, it does not attract the same media coverage or public outcry as other environmental problems, such as deforestation and pollutant emissions.
In accordance with the Convention of Biological Diversity, benefits generated by the commercial utilisation of genetic resources should be shared with the countries of origin of those resources. But those who passionately defend the environment often forget that this silent pillage is effectively robbing developing countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia of the means to finance important sustainable development projects, and is also a powerful disincentive for their biodiversity conservation efforts.
Brazil will host the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention (Curitiba, March 20-31) and has strongly defended the adoption of an international regime to ensure benefit-sharing arrangements under the Convention, which we believe is an important step for eliminating the scourge of biopiracy.
JOSÉ MAURICIO BUSTANI
AMBASSADOR OF BRAZIL LONDON W1"
"The silent disease of biopiracy
Sir: I congratulate Andrew Buncombe for the article "African bio-resources 'exploited by West' " (17 February). It greatly contributes to raise public awareness on the deleterious effects of biopiracy, a serious environmental offence that affects every biodiversity-rich country in the world.
Biopiracy is like a silent disease: it is hardly detectable, it frequently does not leave traces and is an elusive activity perpetrated and oft abetted by many well-known multinational companies. Unfortunately, it does not attract the same media coverage or public outcry as other environmental problems, such as deforestation and pollutant emissions.
In accordance with the Convention of Biological Diversity, benefits generated by the commercial utilisation of genetic resources should be shared with the countries of origin of those resources. But those who passionately defend the environment often forget that this silent pillage is effectively robbing developing countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia of the means to finance important sustainable development projects, and is also a powerful disincentive for their biodiversity conservation efforts.
Brazil will host the eighth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of the Convention (Curitiba, March 20-31) and has strongly defended the adoption of an international regime to ensure benefit-sharing arrangements under the Convention, which we believe is an important step for eliminating the scourge of biopiracy.
JOSÉ MAURICIO BUSTANI
AMBASSADOR OF BRAZIL LONDON W1"
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Government secretly wants the Abolition of Parliament Bill?
Lib Dem MP David Haworth has a piece worthy of widespread attention in last Tuesday's Times but it seems to have bypassed most people including me until now. The government have apparently proposed a bill that would allow ministers to change any law without recourse to Parliament.
"in an almost deserted chamber, the Government proposed an extraordinary Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws, a Bill some constitutional experts are already calling “the Abolition of Parliament Bill”.
A couple of journalists noticed, including Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, and a couple more pricked up their ears last week when I highlighted some biting academic criticism of the Bill on the letters page of this paper. But beyond those rarefied circles, that we are sleepwalking into a new and sinister world of ministerial power seems barely to have registered.
The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed...
Looking back at last week’s business in the Commons, the Bill makes a mockery of the decisions MPs took. Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one’s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment. Nor will the Human Rights Act save us since the Bill makes no exception for it.
The Bill, bizarrely, even applies to itself, so that ministers could propose orders to remove the limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. It also includes a few desultory questions (along the lines of “am I satisfied that I am doing the right thing?”) that ministers have to ask themselves before proceeding, all drafted subjectively so that court challenges will fail, no matter how preposterous the minister’s answer. Even these questions can be removed using the Bill’s own procedure. Indeed, at its most extreme, in a manoeuvre akin to a legislative Indian rope trick, ministers could use it to transfer all legislative power permanently to themselves...
The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for “controversial” matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to “uncontroversial” issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power.
As James Madison gave warning in The Federalist Papers, we should remember when handing out political power that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm”. This Bill should make one doubt whether they are at the helm now."
Thanks to Michael Froomkin for the link.
"in an almost deserted chamber, the Government proposed an extraordinary Bill that will drastically reduce parliamentary discussion of future laws, a Bill some constitutional experts are already calling “the Abolition of Parliament Bill”.
A couple of journalists noticed, including Daniel Finkelstein of The Times, and a couple more pricked up their ears last week when I highlighted some biting academic criticism of the Bill on the letters page of this paper. But beyond those rarefied circles, that we are sleepwalking into a new and sinister world of ministerial power seems barely to have registered.
The boring title of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill hides an astonishing proposal. It gives ministers power to alter any law passed by Parliament. The only limitations are that new crimes cannot be created if the penalty is greater than two years in prison and that it cannot increase taxation. But any other law can be changed, no matter how important. All ministers will have to do is propose an order, wait a few weeks and, voilà, the law is changed...
Looking back at last week’s business in the Commons, the Bill makes a mockery of the decisions MPs took. Carrying ID cards could be made compulsory, smoking in one’s own home could be outlawed and the definition of terrorism altered to make ordinary political protest punishable by life imprisonment. Nor will the Human Rights Act save us since the Bill makes no exception for it.
The Bill, bizarrely, even applies to itself, so that ministers could propose orders to remove the limitations about two-year sentences and taxation. It also includes a few desultory questions (along the lines of “am I satisfied that I am doing the right thing?”) that ministers have to ask themselves before proceeding, all drafted subjectively so that court challenges will fail, no matter how preposterous the minister’s answer. Even these questions can be removed using the Bill’s own procedure. Indeed, at its most extreme, in a manoeuvre akin to a legislative Indian rope trick, ministers could use it to transfer all legislative power permanently to themselves...
The Government claims that there is nothing to worry about. The powers in the Bill, it says, will not be used for “controversial” matters. But there is nothing in the Bill that restricts its use to “uncontroversial” issues. The minister is asking us to trust him, and, worse, to trust all his colleagues and all their successors. No one should be trusted with such power.
As James Madison gave warning in The Federalist Papers, we should remember when handing out political power that “enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm”. This Bill should make one doubt whether they are at the helm now."
Thanks to Michael Froomkin for the link.
Australia Copyright Agency to schools: pay Internet licenses or shut down the net!
From Cory, Australia Copyright Agency to schools: pay Internet licenses or shut down the net!
More idiotic IP overreaching - the Copyright Agency want schools to pay a copyright fee every time someone in the school accesses the Web. The now ex-MP, Sam Buite, tried the same trick in Canada before she got voted out in the recent general election.
As an educator excited by the possibilities technology provides for expanding our educational horizons (as well as marked by the experience of using modern technology at the educational coalface for over ten years) this kind of thing really concerns me. Most of my colleagues in academia have got no interest in the obscure branch of law with the eye glazing title intellectual property. When a company like Acacia finally starts suing educational institutions in the UK as it has been doing in the US, for allegedly breaching their patents on delivering materials via the web, it will come as a huge surprise. Those on the receiving end just will not be expecting it.
Policies that fundamentally affect something as basic as access to education are being formulated in areas of technology and law that most of the stakeholders affected (key ones being educational institutions, parents and students) don't even realise have anything to do with us.
The keys to access the basic raw materials of education could well get sold off to the most influential bidders. It's an issue I'm planning to raise prominently in my book, when I can get it back on schedule. (Looks like publication may now be delayed until 2007 but I'm still hoping to get it out by the end of the year.) I'd rather my kids didn't grow up into a world with pay per view education.
More idiotic IP overreaching - the Copyright Agency want schools to pay a copyright fee every time someone in the school accesses the Web. The now ex-MP, Sam Buite, tried the same trick in Canada before she got voted out in the recent general election.
As an educator excited by the possibilities technology provides for expanding our educational horizons (as well as marked by the experience of using modern technology at the educational coalface for over ten years) this kind of thing really concerns me. Most of my colleagues in academia have got no interest in the obscure branch of law with the eye glazing title intellectual property. When a company like Acacia finally starts suing educational institutions in the UK as it has been doing in the US, for allegedly breaching their patents on delivering materials via the web, it will come as a huge surprise. Those on the receiving end just will not be expecting it.
Policies that fundamentally affect something as basic as access to education are being formulated in areas of technology and law that most of the stakeholders affected (key ones being educational institutions, parents and students) don't even realise have anything to do with us.
The keys to access the basic raw materials of education could well get sold off to the most influential bidders. It's an issue I'm planning to raise prominently in my book, when I can get it back on schedule. (Looks like publication may now be delayed until 2007 but I'm still hoping to get it out by the end of the year.) I'd rather my kids didn't grow up into a world with pay per view education.
Viruses plague British businesses
Viruses plague British businesses according to the BBC. More people really should try the 10 week online Open University course in cybervandalism and how to combat it. Created by my colleagues David Phillips and John Naughton, it is an excellent introduction to the subject.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Amdedo challenge
I've been juggling various stories as potential options for opening the first chapter of my book. One provisional option is the issue of open access to medical information. A very rough draft of the possible opening:
"In 1998 the British Medical Journal (BMJ), based on the principle of facilitating free and unrestricted access to scientific information, decided to make the entire contents of the journal freely available on the Internet. By January 2005, due to a drop in income, the journal partly reversed that decision, making some of the contents accessible online only to paying subscribers, though many elements of the journal such as a selection of research articles remained freely available at bmj.com. In February 2006, the BMJ published the results of a survey ‘To determine whether free access to research articles on bmj.com is an important factor in authors' decisions on whether to submit to the BMJ, whether the introduction of access controls to part of the BMJ's content has influenced authors' perceptions of the journal, and whether the introduction of further access controls would influence authors' perceptions.’
It was a relatively small survey with a little over 200 authors participating but the results suggested free online access was important to a large majority (75%) of them, so the publishers agreed to retain their partial open access policy for the time being.
Other important medical journals, like The Lancet, only provide online access to paying subscribers. Hundreds of other science and medical journals offer a variety of access approaches between the BMJ’s initial completely open access and The Lancet’s closed access policies. Some give you a trial free period after which you have to pay; some offer some articles freely, or for a limited period, or a number of years after the original publication; some sell individual articles separately to non subscribers. The range of approaches is huge and somewhat confusing.
In recent years the UK government has been very interested in pursuing the concept of ‘patient choice’ in the National Health Service e.g. choosing your GP and what hospital you would like to have your operation at. To an even greater extent in the US there has been a focus on “consumer-driven health care,” with personal healthcare plans, insurance and saving accounts.
So is putting complex personal healthcare decisions in the hands of the individual a good idea? Well to a large degree that depends on the capacity of the individual to make informed decisions about the management of their health and in the context of the circumstances within which we find ourselves having to make those decisions. We don’t diagnose on manage complex illnesses or medical emergencies on a daily basis and neither have we received the formal medical training to do so. If I do find myself or a member of my family facing a serious medical emergency, I want access to a doctor who has successfully dealt with the condition thousands of times previously, who can make a rapid diagnosis, prescribe the most effective treatment and explain her carefully thought out, well worn options for managing the aftercare towards a full recovery, once the worst is over.
What about if I have a bit more time to do some research and find out a bit more about say an ongoing chronic condition? A friend of mine with a hip complaint went to great lengths to research his condition and ended up impressing his doctor with the depth of his knowledge on the subject. But supposing the materials he read had not been as freely available as they had been and he had to pay The Lancet, the BMJ and hundreds of other sources a hefty fee for each article he read, would he have had the ability to make the decisions he did about his treatment? Doctors could justifiably claim that most lay people are insufficiently well trained to understand even the language of medics or the reliability of the sources, especially on the Internet, from which we might derive much of this medical ‘information.’ And if the truly reliable peer reviewed sources like the BMJ do gradually move towards a subscription only service, where is the average patient going to get access to important medical information required to make informed healthcare choices?
Well it looks as though, for the moment at least, the BMJ will remain at least partly open, due to the commitment of journal’s contributors to making medical research freely available. On balance that is a good thing but this book is not really about healthcare or medical journals. It is about decision making related to and involving important socio-technological information systems. Information systems which have a considerable impact on public welfare are being created, deployed and regulated without a fundamental understanding about what these systems are required to do, (or even, in many cases, that it is an information system rather than just information technology that is being deployed)."
The material then goes on to outline the two ideas in the book and its structure. The reason I mention it even though the draft is barely presentable is that I've just come across Amedeo Challenge sponsored by Bernd Sebastian Kamps who is offering prizes to physicians who write and publish free medical textbooks. I also know there is a lot of unsung work going on in this area and would be interested in any significant projects B2f readers could point me to. Any comments you might have on the above draft would also be welcome.
Thanks to Peter Suber for the link to Amedo Challenge.
"In 1998 the British Medical Journal (BMJ), based on the principle of facilitating free and unrestricted access to scientific information, decided to make the entire contents of the journal freely available on the Internet. By January 2005, due to a drop in income, the journal partly reversed that decision, making some of the contents accessible online only to paying subscribers, though many elements of the journal such as a selection of research articles remained freely available at bmj.com. In February 2006, the BMJ published the results of a survey ‘To determine whether free access to research articles on bmj.com is an important factor in authors' decisions on whether to submit to the BMJ, whether the introduction of access controls to part of the BMJ's content has influenced authors' perceptions of the journal, and whether the introduction of further access controls would influence authors' perceptions.’
It was a relatively small survey with a little over 200 authors participating but the results suggested free online access was important to a large majority (75%) of them, so the publishers agreed to retain their partial open access policy for the time being.
Other important medical journals, like The Lancet, only provide online access to paying subscribers. Hundreds of other science and medical journals offer a variety of access approaches between the BMJ’s initial completely open access and The Lancet’s closed access policies. Some give you a trial free period after which you have to pay; some offer some articles freely, or for a limited period, or a number of years after the original publication; some sell individual articles separately to non subscribers. The range of approaches is huge and somewhat confusing.
In recent years the UK government has been very interested in pursuing the concept of ‘patient choice’ in the National Health Service e.g. choosing your GP and what hospital you would like to have your operation at. To an even greater extent in the US there has been a focus on “consumer-driven health care,” with personal healthcare plans, insurance and saving accounts.
So is putting complex personal healthcare decisions in the hands of the individual a good idea? Well to a large degree that depends on the capacity of the individual to make informed decisions about the management of their health and in the context of the circumstances within which we find ourselves having to make those decisions. We don’t diagnose on manage complex illnesses or medical emergencies on a daily basis and neither have we received the formal medical training to do so. If I do find myself or a member of my family facing a serious medical emergency, I want access to a doctor who has successfully dealt with the condition thousands of times previously, who can make a rapid diagnosis, prescribe the most effective treatment and explain her carefully thought out, well worn options for managing the aftercare towards a full recovery, once the worst is over.
What about if I have a bit more time to do some research and find out a bit more about say an ongoing chronic condition? A friend of mine with a hip complaint went to great lengths to research his condition and ended up impressing his doctor with the depth of his knowledge on the subject. But supposing the materials he read had not been as freely available as they had been and he had to pay The Lancet, the BMJ and hundreds of other sources a hefty fee for each article he read, would he have had the ability to make the decisions he did about his treatment? Doctors could justifiably claim that most lay people are insufficiently well trained to understand even the language of medics or the reliability of the sources, especially on the Internet, from which we might derive much of this medical ‘information.’ And if the truly reliable peer reviewed sources like the BMJ do gradually move towards a subscription only service, where is the average patient going to get access to important medical information required to make informed healthcare choices?
Well it looks as though, for the moment at least, the BMJ will remain at least partly open, due to the commitment of journal’s contributors to making medical research freely available. On balance that is a good thing but this book is not really about healthcare or medical journals. It is about decision making related to and involving important socio-technological information systems. Information systems which have a considerable impact on public welfare are being created, deployed and regulated without a fundamental understanding about what these systems are required to do, (or even, in many cases, that it is an information system rather than just information technology that is being deployed)."
The material then goes on to outline the two ideas in the book and its structure. The reason I mention it even though the draft is barely presentable is that I've just come across Amedeo Challenge sponsored by Bernd Sebastian Kamps who is offering prizes to physicians who write and publish free medical textbooks. I also know there is a lot of unsung work going on in this area and would be interested in any significant projects B2f readers could point me to. Any comments you might have on the above draft would also be welcome.
Thanks to Peter Suber for the link to Amedo Challenge.
Hollywood should learn Fashion's secret
David Bollier and Laurie Racine think the film industry has a lot to learn from the fashion industry regarding the real impact of intellectual property on creativity.
"The Hollywood studios and major record labels consider it self-evident and axiomatic that creativity must be strictly controlled through copyright law, lest it be "stolen" and creators forced out of business. It is a significant point that creators, especially individual artists, need effective, reliable ways to be paid for their work - and copyright offers one important vehicle. But the fashion industry has a deeper faith in the power of creativity. Despite scant legal protection, fashion businesses invest enormous sums in each new season's creative cycle - and reap substantial profits year after year."
"The Hollywood studios and major record labels consider it self-evident and axiomatic that creativity must be strictly controlled through copyright law, lest it be "stolen" and creators forced out of business. It is a significant point that creators, especially individual artists, need effective, reliable ways to be paid for their work - and copyright offers one important vehicle. But the fashion industry has a deeper faith in the power of creativity. Despite scant legal protection, fashion businesses invest enormous sums in each new season's creative cycle - and reap substantial profits year after year."
Da Vinci Code copyright case in High Court
The latest intellectual property dispute over Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" has reached the UK High Court today.
"Writers Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are claiming that the American novelist Dan Brown appropriated themes and ideas they explored in their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
They are suing their own publishers, Random House, which is also Mr Brown's publisher, for breach of copyright in the potentially far-reaching case."
Don't bet on it being a "potentially far-reaching case." It seems like a straightforward copyright case to me. I doubt that Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh will get another book deal with Random House after this but it does, however, have the potential to interest the general public in the issue of copyright and it will be fascinating to see how it works out.
"Writers Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are claiming that the American novelist Dan Brown appropriated themes and ideas they explored in their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
They are suing their own publishers, Random House, which is also Mr Brown's publisher, for breach of copyright in the potentially far-reaching case."
Don't bet on it being a "potentially far-reaching case." It seems like a straightforward copyright case to me. I doubt that Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh will get another book deal with Random House after this but it does, however, have the potential to interest the general public in the issue of copyright and it will be fascinating to see how it works out.
Decency and talented people
A heartwarming story outside the usual scope of b2fxxx scribblings.
"Jason McElwain is a seventeen year old high school senior. He is also autistic. McElwain did not talk until he was five. He lacked social skills. Many of his classes were very small (about six students) so that he could have more individualized attention. For one four minute period, Jason McElwain was a star."
Dedicated to basketball he helped out his high school team in every way he could except by playing but the coach let him play for the last 4 minutes of the last game of the season, when team had a large lead. Contrary to all expectations the young man then promptly scored 20 points!
Thanks to Michael Froomkin for the link.
"Jason McElwain is a seventeen year old high school senior. He is also autistic. McElwain did not talk until he was five. He lacked social skills. Many of his classes were very small (about six students) so that he could have more individualized attention. For one four minute period, Jason McElwain was a star."
Dedicated to basketball he helped out his high school team in every way he could except by playing but the coach let him play for the last 4 minutes of the last game of the season, when team had a large lead. Contrary to all expectations the young man then promptly scored 20 points!
Thanks to Michael Froomkin for the link.
Ballistics and the vice president
Alex Jones is convinced that Dick Cheney is not telling the whole truth about the accident in which he shot a friend, Harry Whittington.
Dan Gillmor has been thinking about what might have happened if Al Gore had shot someone.
"Suppose Al Gore, back in 1998, had shot someone in the face and chest in a Tennessee hunting accident. Suppose, further, that he had a) not told authorities (or President Clinton) promptly; b) kept the news from the American people for a day, letting word leak out via contradictory stories, initially through a small local newspaper; c) stonewalled for another several days until Gore sat for an interview with a hand-picked journalistic pal; and d) Clinton had pronounced the entire affair totally fine in retrospect.
We all know what would have happened. The right wing noise machine would have gone ballistic. Several Congressional investigations would already be in the works, not least a probe into why the local authorities had behaved as they did.
But at least some Democrats -- and lots of left-leaning commentators -- would have agreed, publicly, that such behavior was outrageous."
Dan Gillmor has been thinking about what might have happened if Al Gore had shot someone.
"Suppose Al Gore, back in 1998, had shot someone in the face and chest in a Tennessee hunting accident. Suppose, further, that he had a) not told authorities (or President Clinton) promptly; b) kept the news from the American people for a day, letting word leak out via contradictory stories, initially through a small local newspaper; c) stonewalled for another several days until Gore sat for an interview with a hand-picked journalistic pal; and d) Clinton had pronounced the entire affair totally fine in retrospect.
We all know what would have happened. The right wing noise machine would have gone ballistic. Several Congressional investigations would already be in the works, not least a probe into why the local authorities had behaved as they did.
But at least some Democrats -- and lots of left-leaning commentators -- would have agreed, publicly, that such behavior was outrageous."
Apple overreaching on the DMCA?
Dan Gillmor is concerned that Apple is using the DMCA to stop a discussion of how to use its new operating system.
"The DMCA itself is bad enough, but abusing an already bad law would only make matters worse.
The company has a long history of challenging speech. This looks like yet another unsavory example."
"The DMCA itself is bad enough, but abusing an already bad law would only make matters worse.
The company has a long history of challenging speech. This looks like yet another unsavory example."
Fearmonger in Chief
William Greider reckons George Bush has only himself to blame for the controversy surrounding the Dubai company control of US ports controversy.
"A conservative blaming hysteria is hysterical, when you think about it, and a bit late. Hysteria launched Bush's invasion of Iraq. It created that monstrosity called Homeland Security and pumped up defense spending by more than 40 percent. Hysteria has been used to realign U.S. foreign policy for permanent imperial war-making, whenever and wherever we find something frightening afoot in the world. Hysteria will justify the "long war" now fondly embraced by Field Marshal Rumsfeld. It has also slaughtered a number of Democrats who were not sufficiently hysterical. It saved George Bush's butt in 2004.
Bush was the principal author—along with his straight-shooting vice president—and now he is hoisted by his own fear-mongering propaganda. The basic hysteria was invented from risks of terrorism, enlarged ridiculously by the president's open-ended claim that we are endangered everywhere and anywhere—he decides where. Anyone who resists that proposition is a coward or, worse, a subversive. We are enticed to believe we are fighting a new Cold War. But are we...
So why is the fearmonger-in-chief being so casual about this Dubai business?
Because at some level of consciousness even George Bush knows the inflated fears are bogus. So do a lot of the politicians merrily throwing spears at him. He taught them how to play this game, invented the tactics and reorganized political competition as a demagogic dance of hysterical absurdities, endless opportunities to waste public money. Very few dare to challenge the mindset. Thousands have died for it."
"A conservative blaming hysteria is hysterical, when you think about it, and a bit late. Hysteria launched Bush's invasion of Iraq. It created that monstrosity called Homeland Security and pumped up defense spending by more than 40 percent. Hysteria has been used to realign U.S. foreign policy for permanent imperial war-making, whenever and wherever we find something frightening afoot in the world. Hysteria will justify the "long war" now fondly embraced by Field Marshal Rumsfeld. It has also slaughtered a number of Democrats who were not sufficiently hysterical. It saved George Bush's butt in 2004.
Bush was the principal author—along with his straight-shooting vice president—and now he is hoisted by his own fear-mongering propaganda. The basic hysteria was invented from risks of terrorism, enlarged ridiculously by the president's open-ended claim that we are endangered everywhere and anywhere—he decides where. Anyone who resists that proposition is a coward or, worse, a subversive. We are enticed to believe we are fighting a new Cold War. But are we...
So why is the fearmonger-in-chief being so casual about this Dubai business?
Because at some level of consciousness even George Bush knows the inflated fears are bogus. So do a lot of the politicians merrily throwing spears at him. He taught them how to play this game, invented the tactics and reorganized political competition as a demagogic dance of hysterical absurdities, endless opportunities to waste public money. Very few dare to challenge the mindset. Thousands have died for it."
A brush with the law at Heathrow an ominous sign?
I wonder if Jenni Russell, writing in the Guardian on Saturday, about what she found to be a scary encounter with officials and police at Heathrow, would accept Mr Blair's claims to be protecting liberties. After two British Airways customer service employees proved unhelpful and obstructive she raised her voice to them "The sign behind you says you're here to help customers; why are you being so unhelpful?" "Right," said the older man, gleefully. "You're being threatening. I'm calling the police."
"Within minutes, to my shock, two policemen were at my side. They were grave. One was suspicious; the other, eventually, sympathetic. But I was left, just as the BA staff had intended, feeling intimidated and powerless."
A friend stranded with a young baby at a train station explained a similar situation where beligerant staff summoned armed police when she complained.
"In both of these incidents, the normal rules of customer service had been suspended and replaced by something alarming: an assumption, by those in uniform, that a member of the public who questions them can now be treated as a potential threat...
Dangerously for all of us, the fear of terrorism is legitimising intimidating behaviour by petty officials and agents of the state. It has become an excuse for bullying people when they step out of obedient lines...
I fear that many of us are failing to see the danger we are now in, precisely because we have grown up in a largely benign state. We still trust in the good sense and reasonableness of its agents, and the rest of officialdom. We don't understand that that has been sustained only by the existence of our legal rights, and by a respect for our freedom of action. We don't see the lesson of every society: that if you do not place constraints on official power, its instinct is to grow. Our tolerant world is disappearing, and it is only when many more of us start running up against that reality that we will realise what we have lost."
"Within minutes, to my shock, two policemen were at my side. They were grave. One was suspicious; the other, eventually, sympathetic. But I was left, just as the BA staff had intended, feeling intimidated and powerless."
A friend stranded with a young baby at a train station explained a similar situation where beligerant staff summoned armed police when she complained.
"In both of these incidents, the normal rules of customer service had been suspended and replaced by something alarming: an assumption, by those in uniform, that a member of the public who questions them can now be treated as a potential threat...
Dangerously for all of us, the fear of terrorism is legitimising intimidating behaviour by petty officials and agents of the state. It has become an excuse for bullying people when they step out of obedient lines...
I fear that many of us are failing to see the danger we are now in, precisely because we have grown up in a largely benign state. We still trust in the good sense and reasonableness of its agents, and the rest of officialdom. We don't understand that that has been sustained only by the existence of our legal rights, and by a respect for our freedom of action. We don't see the lesson of every society: that if you do not place constraints on official power, its instinct is to grow. Our tolerant world is disappearing, and it is only when many more of us start running up against that reality that we will realise what we have lost."
Blair "I don't destroy liberties I protect them"
Tony Blair has an article in yesterday's Observer saying I don't destroy liberties, I protect them , in response to a series of articles in the paper recently on our disappearing freedoms.
"...there is a serious debate about the nature of liberty in the modern world. I accept the good faith of our critics. I just believe them to be profoundly mistaken...
If we fail to tackle ASB because the court system is inadequate, other people's liberties suffer. If we don't take head-on organised criminals or terrorists, others are harmed. The question is not one of individual liberty vs the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people.
In theory, traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed."
There is a strong academic temptation to dissect some of the phrases (like that last one) but it is largely the usual rhetoric, delivered with no real thought or feeling behind the words other than to repeat them often enough in the hope of having them accepted (a proven rhetorical tactic). But this "this world has changed; trust us we're acting in your best interests; we must protect your liberties by taking them away" just leads to further mistrust, as so clearly explained by Bruce Schneier here in the context of the US Ports controversy.
"when it comes to government, trust is based on transparency. The more our government is based on secrecy, the more we are forced to "just trust" it and the less we actually trust it."
"...there is a serious debate about the nature of liberty in the modern world. I accept the good faith of our critics. I just believe them to be profoundly mistaken...
If we fail to tackle ASB because the court system is inadequate, other people's liberties suffer. If we don't take head-on organised criminals or terrorists, others are harmed. The question is not one of individual liberty vs the state but of which approach best guarantees most liberty for the largest number of people.
In theory, traditional court processes and attitudes to civil liberties could work. But the modern world is different from the world for which these court processes were designed."
There is a strong academic temptation to dissect some of the phrases (like that last one) but it is largely the usual rhetoric, delivered with no real thought or feeling behind the words other than to repeat them often enough in the hope of having them accepted (a proven rhetorical tactic). But this "this world has changed; trust us we're acting in your best interests; we must protect your liberties by taking them away" just leads to further mistrust, as so clearly explained by Bruce Schneier here in the context of the US Ports controversy.
"when it comes to government, trust is based on transparency. The more our government is based on secrecy, the more we are forced to "just trust" it and the less we actually trust it."
Yahoo! music executive wants to kill off drm
Derek Slater is impressed with the music folks at Yahoo!, most especially Music executive, Dave Goldberg, who is reportedly advocating that the major labels give up on DRM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)