Retired general and former head of the NSA when Ronald Reagan was president has been criticising the current administration's war and terror and what he sees as their infringement of civil liberties, on the "Metro Spirit National Security Blog"
"Metro Spirit: What are your feelings on the NSA’s program of warrantless wiretapping of American citizens?
William Odom: It didn’t happen under my watch. And I’m still puzzled why somebody hasn’t tried to impeach the president for doing it. Any conservative in the United States who values his life [ought to be outraged]. In fact, the South seceded in defense of minority rights — why the hell have they forgotten them now? Ben Franklin said, “somebody who values security over liberty deserves neither.”
MS: What do you say to people, and there are plenty here in Augusta, who say that cutting and running from Iraq is traitorous act?
WO: Well, just tell ‘em they’re full of shit. They're traitors. You know what lemmings are? Yeah, they’re lemmings. We went to war for our enemies’ best interests. You ask those people why it makes sense that we went to war to advance the interests of Iran and Al Qaeda."
Monday, December 04, 2006
Letter asking WHO review of the Essential Drugs List (EDL)
Jamie Love has written to the World Health Organisation asking them to review the asking the Essential Drugs List (EDL). OF the 312 medicines on the list, only 14 are protected by patents which would suggest that patents are not blocking access to essential medicines in developing countries. The trouble is that cost is one of the key factors in determining whether a particular drug is "essential." So large numbers of patented drugs don't make the list because they are too expensive. There is a good reason for including cost as a factor because the list is designed to avoid high priced (less cost effective) patented medicines. But an unintended side affect of this is that even drugs which developing countries would have a right to make cheaper generic versions of under compulsory licence, are not making the list because the cost of the patented rather than the generic version is what it taken into consideration in deciding whether it should be on the list. Love says:
"Drug industry representatives have used the WHO EDL to argue that rigid intellectual property protections are not a barrier to essential medicines, because “no” patented medicines are “essential” according to the WHO.[2] Of course this is a distortion; many patented medicines currently not on the EDL would be included were they available at generic prices – for instance the most recent list includes no patented anti-cancer drugs, and the core list includes no anti-cancer drugs whatsoever. The existence of a WHO “Essential Medicines List” which clearly does not contain many truly essential medicines may be confusing for public health officials and others and provide rhetorical fodder to those who oppose intellectual property flexibilities for health...
Patented medicines currently available only at prohibitive prices may nonetheless offer the “potential for cost-effective treatment” as countries have the opportunity to legally produce or import generic versions. More critical to the evaluation of cost effectiveness under the emerging system is the true marginal cost of production, which bears little or no relationship to the market price in developed countries.
We believe that it is more appropriate that the Essential Medicines List reflect the opportunity that many countries have to obtain currently patented drugs at generic prices by assessing cost-effectiveness not only on the basis of current market prices, but also on the basis of potential generic prices if countries were to avail themselves of their right to exercise TRIPS flexibilities, including the granting of compulsory licenses. Developing countries in particular might stand to benefit from a model WHO Essential Medicines List that does not exclude essential patented medicines by ignoring the potential that those drugs could be obtained more cheaply. A welcome side-effect of this change would be an “Essential Medicines List" that more fully reflects the range of truly essential medicines, where essential reflects both the need for treatments and the costs of meeting those needs unburdened by patent rents.
We recognize that the current WHO Essential Medicines List (EDL) is designed to avoid high priced (less cost effective) patented medicines, that some national laws that reference the EDL create obligations for public outlays, and that these outlays may not be justified at the higher prices for patented medicines. The WHO could easily address this problem by creating a category within the EDL for medicines that are essential "if available at generic prices," an option that is clearly relevant for many developing countries."
Essential reading.
"Drug industry representatives have used the WHO EDL to argue that rigid intellectual property protections are not a barrier to essential medicines, because “no” patented medicines are “essential” according to the WHO.[2] Of course this is a distortion; many patented medicines currently not on the EDL would be included were they available at generic prices – for instance the most recent list includes no patented anti-cancer drugs, and the core list includes no anti-cancer drugs whatsoever. The existence of a WHO “Essential Medicines List” which clearly does not contain many truly essential medicines may be confusing for public health officials and others and provide rhetorical fodder to those who oppose intellectual property flexibilities for health...
Patented medicines currently available only at prohibitive prices may nonetheless offer the “potential for cost-effective treatment” as countries have the opportunity to legally produce or import generic versions. More critical to the evaluation of cost effectiveness under the emerging system is the true marginal cost of production, which bears little or no relationship to the market price in developed countries.
We believe that it is more appropriate that the Essential Medicines List reflect the opportunity that many countries have to obtain currently patented drugs at generic prices by assessing cost-effectiveness not only on the basis of current market prices, but also on the basis of potential generic prices if countries were to avail themselves of their right to exercise TRIPS flexibilities, including the granting of compulsory licenses. Developing countries in particular might stand to benefit from a model WHO Essential Medicines List that does not exclude essential patented medicines by ignoring the potential that those drugs could be obtained more cheaply. A welcome side-effect of this change would be an “Essential Medicines List" that more fully reflects the range of truly essential medicines, where essential reflects both the need for treatments and the costs of meeting those needs unburdened by patent rents.
We recognize that the current WHO Essential Medicines List (EDL) is designed to avoid high priced (less cost effective) patented medicines, that some national laws that reference the EDL create obligations for public outlays, and that these outlays may not be justified at the higher prices for patented medicines. The WHO could easily address this problem by creating a category within the EDL for medicines that are essential "if available at generic prices," an option that is clearly relevant for many developing countries."
Essential reading.
Poll: Millions may resist ID cards
This morning's Telegraph has a big story on a YouGov poll which suggests that millions may resist the government's ID cards scheme.
I'm not sure it will run into the millions but suspect it could be tens or possibly hundreds of thousands. Once the reality of the government's specific ID card system disaster starts to dawn on people the protests may then grow.
I had an interesting chat with someone at the weekend about the children's index. She's a parent of primary school children who had no inkling that the government were developing the children's index database nor that there were so many other children's databases in operation. She had recently received a letter from her children's school, however, noting that what she considered to be significant items of personal information were now going to be collected about her children. She was angry that her family's privacy was being invaded with no justifiable reason and that her permission was not sought for the collection of this data.
She asked me about the databases because I had mentioned recently that I had written a book about civil rights and computers. At the time she had noted politely that that sounded interesting but it was clear that the subject was really too remote and abstract for her to take a real interest. The school's letter, however, suddenly turned it into something of immediate concern. We might find that once the ID card system begins to operate it will provide a similar jolt to many others' sensitivities to how the goverment are building massive new insecure information systems in their name.
){kind=link}
I'm not sure it will run into the millions but suspect it could be tens or possibly hundreds of thousands. Once the reality of the government's specific ID card system disaster starts to dawn on people the protests may then grow.
I had an interesting chat with someone at the weekend about the children's index. She's a parent of primary school children who had no inkling that the government were developing the children's index database nor that there were so many other children's databases in operation. She had recently received a letter from her children's school, however, noting that what she considered to be significant items of personal information were now going to be collected about her children. She was angry that her family's privacy was being invaded with no justifiable reason and that her permission was not sought for the collection of this data.
She asked me about the databases because I had mentioned recently that I had written a book about civil rights and computers. At the time she had noted politely that that sounded interesting but it was clear that the subject was really too remote and abstract for her to take a real interest. The school's letter, however, suddenly turned it into something of immediate concern. We might find that once the ID card system begins to operate it will provide a similar jolt to many others' sensitivities to how the goverment are building massive new insecure information systems in their name.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Australia's new copyright law
IP specialist, Kim Weatherall, has been explaining Australia's new criminal copyright laws: strict liability, 'negligence' and why these laws just haven't been thought through. She also points out that though the worst excesses of the original draft, e.g. criminalising iPod owners, didn't make it through, the law still makes it a criminal offence to sell a second hand iPod with some songs still on it.
Podcast interview with Ross Anderson
Outlaw have a podcast interview with Ross Anderson about the government's approach to child surveillance and the powerful FIPR report for the Information Comissioner on same.
Ross highlights what he considers to be the two main concerns raised in the report. Firstly that by asking social workers to look into the affairs of about a hundred times more children, the overwhelming majority of whom need absolutely no such intervention, the government will take scarce resources away from children at risk, with the result that some of these children at risk will come to harm. Secondly the kind of intervention that is justifiable in cases where children are truly at risk e.g. where parent or guardian suspected of criminal abuse - e.g. removing the child from the family and holding the suspect in custody - is illegal if the intervention is as a result of welfare concerns such as not doing as well as might be expected at school. Child protection justifies overriding privacy and the wishes of a parent suspected of being a serious criminal but this is not the case in child welfare.
He also makes the point that in the case of the databases related to youth justice, the Home Office takes the view that it is immune from data protection and human rights law i.e. if it is using any data for police purposes it can do what it likes regardless of the law. "The government is not obeying the law of the land when it comes to getting consent for data sharing from children and their families."
It's a relatively short interview and worth listening to in full.
Ross highlights what he considers to be the two main concerns raised in the report. Firstly that by asking social workers to look into the affairs of about a hundred times more children, the overwhelming majority of whom need absolutely no such intervention, the government will take scarce resources away from children at risk, with the result that some of these children at risk will come to harm. Secondly the kind of intervention that is justifiable in cases where children are truly at risk e.g. where parent or guardian suspected of criminal abuse - e.g. removing the child from the family and holding the suspect in custody - is illegal if the intervention is as a result of welfare concerns such as not doing as well as might be expected at school. Child protection justifies overriding privacy and the wishes of a parent suspected of being a serious criminal but this is not the case in child welfare.
He also makes the point that in the case of the databases related to youth justice, the Home Office takes the view that it is immune from data protection and human rights law i.e. if it is using any data for police purposes it can do what it likes regardless of the law. "The government is not obeying the law of the land when it comes to getting consent for data sharing from children and their families."
It's a relatively short interview and worth listening to in full.
Software Freedom Law Center challenge Blackboard Patent
The Software Freedom Law Center set up by Eben Moglen has challenged the Blackboard patent on elearning systems, asking the US Patent Office to re-examine it with a view to invalidating it. Moglen's group are concerned at the potential impact of the patent on open source projects like Moodle, despite the fact that Blackboard have said they have no intention of targetting such initiatives for legal action.
Regular readers will know I believe that the Blackboard patent should never have been granted.
Regular readers will know I believe that the Blackboard patent should never have been granted.
Haloscan censorship
Well I've had no reply from Haloscan to my request for an explanation as to why Spyblog was blocked from posting a comment to this blog last week. I think ten days is a reasonable length of time to allow them to get back to me but I have not even received an acknowledgement. So I will be removing Haloscan commenting from this blog as soon as I can get a spare moment.
I'm disappointed by Haloscan's lack of acknowledgement and by their filtering processes which, whatever the detailed mechanics might be, are interfering with the legitimate exchange of ideas.
Update: Well I've removed the code the template relating to Haloscan but when trying re-publish the template, Blogger helpfully tells me "there were errors" without specifying what they are and does not update the code. I'm not a code jockey and I accept that I've tweaked the html on this blog so often to make it more readable that it is now a bit cumbersome. I have probably therefore missed a stupid simple error in the changes. I just wanted to get rid of Haloscan and have spent the past hour and a half mucking about with the template, unable to get Blogger to accept the changes. If any readers happen to be html specialists I'd appreciate a pointer to the error(/s) so I can rectify them quickly and consign Haloscan to the past, as far as this blog goes. I can't updgrade to the new Blogger yet either, since my blog is too big.
Further update: I've finally erased Haloscan. Blogger still doesn't like my html but I can live with that.
I'm disappointed by Haloscan's lack of acknowledgement and by their filtering processes which, whatever the detailed mechanics might be, are interfering with the legitimate exchange of ideas.
Update: Well I've removed the code the template relating to Haloscan but when trying re-publish the template, Blogger helpfully tells me "there were errors" without specifying what they are and does not update the code. I'm not a code jockey and I accept that I've tweaked the html on this blog so often to make it more readable that it is now a bit cumbersome. I have probably therefore missed a stupid simple error in the changes. I just wanted to get rid of Haloscan and have spent the past hour and a half mucking about with the template, unable to get Blogger to accept the changes. If any readers happen to be html specialists I'd appreciate a pointer to the error(/s) so I can rectify them quickly and consign Haloscan to the past, as far as this blog goes. I can't updgrade to the new Blogger yet either, since my blog is too big.
Further update: I've finally erased Haloscan. Blogger still doesn't like my html but I can live with that.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Tony Blair is not Hitler: official
From The Register:
"An advert showing a close-up picture of Tony Blair with a barcode on his top lip was not offensive, the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled."
"An advert showing a close-up picture of Tony Blair with a barcode on his top lip was not offensive, the Advertising Standards Authority has ruled."
Evoting setbacks in Italy and the US
Currently deployed electronic voting has received a couple of setbacks in the US and Italy in recent days. The Italian Prime Minister's office has been reported as saying that evoting trials in Italy have been a failure and evoting will be discontinued there. (Thanks to Glyn via the ORG list for the link)
In the US the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is required to assist the Election Assistance Commission with the development of voluntary voting system guidelines, has issued a draft white paper. Amongst other things the white paper concludes that "Software-dependent approaches such as the DRE are not viable for future voting systems." (DREs are 'direct record electronic' machines run by proprietary software). From the body of the report "software independence" is described as follows:
"A voting system is software-independent if a previously undetected change or error in its software cannot cause an undetectable change or error in an election outcome. In other words, it can be positively determined whether the voting system’s (typically, electronic) CVRs are accurate as cast by the voter or in error. In SI voting systems that are readily available today, the determination can be made via the use of independent audits of the electronic counts or CVRs, and independent voter-verified paper records used as the audit trail.
A simple example of this is op scan, in which a voter marks (by hand or using an EBM) the paper ballot. The voter verifies the paper ballot is correct, thus it is voter-verified, and the paper ballot is “outside” or independent of the voting system, i.e., it cannot be changed or modified by the voting system. As a consequence of these two factors, the paper ballot can be considered as independent evidence of what the voter believed he or she was casting. After the paper ballots are scanned, they can subsequently be used to provide an independent audit, or check, on the accuracy of the electronic counts.
If an undetected change or error in the optical scanner’s software were to cause erroneous counts, subsequent audits would show the errors. Even if malicious code was inserted into the scanner’s software, the audits would detect resultant errors in the counts. Therefore, the correctness of the scanner’s counts does not rely on the correctness of the scanner’s software, and thus op scan is software independent: changes or errors in its software will be reliably detected by independent audits of its electronic counts. Thus, the primary ingredients to SI as illustrated in op scan are (1) voter-verified records that are (2) independent of the voting system used in (3) audits of the scanner’s electronic counts."
Well worth a read for evoting geeks.
In the US the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which is required to assist the Election Assistance Commission with the development of voluntary voting system guidelines, has issued a draft white paper. Amongst other things the white paper concludes that "Software-dependent approaches such as the DRE are not viable for future voting systems." (DREs are 'direct record electronic' machines run by proprietary software). From the body of the report "software independence" is described as follows:
"A voting system is software-independent if a previously undetected change or error in its software cannot cause an undetectable change or error in an election outcome. In other words, it can be positively determined whether the voting system’s (typically, electronic) CVRs are accurate as cast by the voter or in error. In SI voting systems that are readily available today, the determination can be made via the use of independent audits of the electronic counts or CVRs, and independent voter-verified paper records used as the audit trail.
A simple example of this is op scan, in which a voter marks (by hand or using an EBM) the paper ballot. The voter verifies the paper ballot is correct, thus it is voter-verified, and the paper ballot is “outside” or independent of the voting system, i.e., it cannot be changed or modified by the voting system. As a consequence of these two factors, the paper ballot can be considered as independent evidence of what the voter believed he or she was casting. After the paper ballots are scanned, they can subsequently be used to provide an independent audit, or check, on the accuracy of the electronic counts.
If an undetected change or error in the optical scanner’s software were to cause erroneous counts, subsequent audits would show the errors. Even if malicious code was inserted into the scanner’s software, the audits would detect resultant errors in the counts. Therefore, the correctness of the scanner’s counts does not rely on the correctness of the scanner’s software, and thus op scan is software independent: changes or errors in its software will be reliably detected by independent audits of its electronic counts. Thus, the primary ingredients to SI as illustrated in op scan are (1) voter-verified records that are (2) independent of the voting system used in (3) audits of the scanner’s electronic counts."
Well worth a read for evoting geeks.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Italian prosecutors investigate Google over bullying video
Italian prosecutors are, according to News.com, investigating to Google representatives after a video of teenagers bullying an austistic classmate appeared on the Google video site.
"The two are accused of failing to check on the content of the video posted on the Internet search engine's Web site.
The video, which sparked outrage in the country, showed four teenagers beating and poking fun at a 17-year-old disabled boy in a classroom in the northern Italian city of Turin.
Prosecutors have already put the four students and a teacher under investigation. The students have also been suspended until the end of the school year.
A spokeswoman for Google in Europe said the Internet search engine was sorry for the distress caused by the video and had acted swiftly when it was informed of its content."
This is a tough situation. Would the authorities have dealt with the bullying if it had not come to light via Google? Are they dealing with it appropriately even now? How could the situation have been allowed to happen in the first place? Schools are required to have anti-bullying policies but such policies are meaningless if they are left to gather dust on the shelf without meaningful measures tackling real bullying in practice. What about the privacy of the victim, which has been compromised in this case? Michael Geist has been thinking about the challenges ubiquitous video is imposing on society
"While there are some obvious benefits that arise from the transparency and potential accountability that can come from video evidence of controversial events, the emergence of an always-on video society raises some difficult questions about the appropriate privacy-transparency balance, the ethics of posting private moments to a global audience, and the responsibility of websites that facilitate Internet video distribution...
Rather than banning the technology, we must instead begin to grapple with the implications of these changes by considering the boundaries between transparency and privacy. As our expectations of the availability of video changes, so too must our sense of the video rules of the road. "
Time to re-visit David Brin's The Transparent Society.
"The two are accused of failing to check on the content of the video posted on the Internet search engine's Web site.
The video, which sparked outrage in the country, showed four teenagers beating and poking fun at a 17-year-old disabled boy in a classroom in the northern Italian city of Turin.
Prosecutors have already put the four students and a teacher under investigation. The students have also been suspended until the end of the school year.
A spokeswoman for Google in Europe said the Internet search engine was sorry for the distress caused by the video and had acted swiftly when it was informed of its content."
This is a tough situation. Would the authorities have dealt with the bullying if it had not come to light via Google? Are they dealing with it appropriately even now? How could the situation have been allowed to happen in the first place? Schools are required to have anti-bullying policies but such policies are meaningless if they are left to gather dust on the shelf without meaningful measures tackling real bullying in practice. What about the privacy of the victim, which has been compromised in this case? Michael Geist has been thinking about the challenges ubiquitous video is imposing on society
"While there are some obvious benefits that arise from the transparency and potential accountability that can come from video evidence of controversial events, the emergence of an always-on video society raises some difficult questions about the appropriate privacy-transparency balance, the ethics of posting private moments to a global audience, and the responsibility of websites that facilitate Internet video distribution...
Rather than banning the technology, we must instead begin to grapple with the implications of these changes by considering the boundaries between transparency and privacy. As our expectations of the availability of video changes, so too must our sense of the video rules of the road. "
Time to re-visit David Brin's The Transparent Society.
Universities urged: 'share benefits of health research'
Eva Tallaksen at SciDev.Net has a succinct report on the Philadelphia Consensus Statement which "outlines how universities can improve access to medicines and transfer of knowledge to the developing world by changing their licensing policies and intellectual property (IP) rights." From the Philadelphia Consensus Statement:
"According to the World Health Organization, about ten million people—most of them in developing countries—die needlessly every year because they do not have access to existing medicines and vaccines. Countless others suffer from neglected tropical diseases, such as sleeping sickness, lymphatic filariasis, and blinding trachoma. Because these neglected diseases predominantly affect the poor, they attract very little research and development funding, which leads directly to a paucity of safe and effective treatment options.
Thanks to Thiru Balasubramaniam of the Consumer Project on Technology, via the A2K list, for the pointer.
"According to the World Health Organization, about ten million people—most of them in developing countries—die needlessly every year because they do not have access to existing medicines and vaccines. Countless others suffer from neglected tropical diseases, such as sleeping sickness, lymphatic filariasis, and blinding trachoma. Because these neglected diseases predominantly affect the poor, they attract very little research and development funding, which leads directly to a paucity of safe and effective treatment options.
We believe that access to medical care and treatment is a basic human right.1 Lack of access to medical treatment in developing countries stems from several factors, including high prices for medicines, underfunded health care systems, and a global biomedical research agenda poorly matched to the health needs of the world’s destitute sick. Comprehensive solutions are thus needed to increase both access to existing medicines and research on neglected diseases.
We believe that universities have an opportunity and a responsibility to take part in those solutions. University scientists are major contributors in the drug development pipeline. At the same time, universities are dedicated to the creation and dissemination of knowledge in the public interest. Global public health is a vital component of the public interest. Therefore, universities best realize their objectives when they promote innovation and access to health-related technologies.
To this end, we, the signatories of this Statement, urge universities to adopt the following recommendations.
As owners of intellectual property, universities have the ability to promote widespread availability of their technologies in the developing world. When university-owned intellectual property is necessary for the development of a health-related end product—including but not limited to drugs, vaccines, diagnostics, monitoring tools, know-how and technical expertise—universities should:
PROMOTE EQUAL ACCESS TO UNIVERSITY RESEARCH
1. Require the inclusion of licensing terms in exclusive technology transfer agreements that ensure low-cost access to health-related innovations in the developing world...
2. Develop a transparent, case-by-case global access strategy to ensure access to health-related technologies where licensing provisions like the EAL will not serve the access objectives defined above...
PROMOTE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR NEGLECTED DISEASES
1. Adopt policies promoting in-house ND research...
2. Engage with nontraditional partners to create new opportunities for ND drug development...
3. Carve out an ND research exemption for any patents held or licenses executed...
Given their avowed commitment to the public good, universities should measure success in technology transfer by impact on global human welfare rather than simply by financial return. The positive social impact from university innovations—particularly in poor countries—would go largely unnoticed if technology transfer were to be measured in dollars alone. In order to develop transparent criteria measuring access to health technologies and innovation in neglected-disease research, universities should:
MEASURE RESEARCH SUCCESS ACCORDING TO IMPACT ON HUMAN WELFARE
1. Collect and make public statistics on university intellectual property practices related to global health access...
2. Collaborate with other universities and consortia to develop more robust technology transfer metrics that better gauge access to public health goods and innovation in neglected-disease research."
Thanks to Thiru Balasubramaniam of the Consumer Project on Technology, via the A2K list, for the pointer.
We need leaders to adhere to the rule of law
Martin Kettle had a nice article in the Guardian on Saturday reporting on Lord Bingham's recent speech at Cambridge on the rule of law.
"In my view, no more important speech has been given in this country this year, for Bingham warns that some of the most sensitive decisions made by government are currently incompatible with his definition of the rule of law...
the law must be accessible and intelligible; disputes must be resolved by application of the law rather than exercise of discretion; the law must apply equally to all; it must protect fundamental human rights; disputes should be resolved without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay; public officials must use power reasonably and not exceed their powers; the system for resolving differences must be fair. Finally, a state must comply with its international law obligations. Now start to tease out what these implications might mean in practice. This is where Bingham's legal principles suddenly lock gears with the real world.
If the law is to be accessible and intelligible, for example, then there must be an end both to judicial prolixity and to what Bingham calls "the legislative hyperactivity which appears to have become a permanent feature of our governance - in 2004, some 3,500 pages of primary legislation; in 2003, nearly 9,000 pages of statutory instruments." This applies particularly in the "torrent of criminal legislation", not all of which is "readily intelligible". To uphold the rule of law, in other words, lawmakers will have to do less of it and be clearer...
No government is perfect. But when the most revered of these guardians suggests that critical decisions by ministers have fallen short of the rule of law on a range of counts, then it follows that Britain needs a better form of government, whose members can succeed where the current ones have failed and who better understand the real meaning of the principles they claim to support."
Update: John points out that an audio recording of Lord Binghamm's speech is also available here.
"In my view, no more important speech has been given in this country this year, for Bingham warns that some of the most sensitive decisions made by government are currently incompatible with his definition of the rule of law...
the law must be accessible and intelligible; disputes must be resolved by application of the law rather than exercise of discretion; the law must apply equally to all; it must protect fundamental human rights; disputes should be resolved without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay; public officials must use power reasonably and not exceed their powers; the system for resolving differences must be fair. Finally, a state must comply with its international law obligations. Now start to tease out what these implications might mean in practice. This is where Bingham's legal principles suddenly lock gears with the real world.
If the law is to be accessible and intelligible, for example, then there must be an end both to judicial prolixity and to what Bingham calls "the legislative hyperactivity which appears to have become a permanent feature of our governance - in 2004, some 3,500 pages of primary legislation; in 2003, nearly 9,000 pages of statutory instruments." This applies particularly in the "torrent of criminal legislation", not all of which is "readily intelligible". To uphold the rule of law, in other words, lawmakers will have to do less of it and be clearer...
No government is perfect. But when the most revered of these guardians suggests that critical decisions by ministers have fallen short of the rule of law on a range of counts, then it follows that Britain needs a better form of government, whose members can succeed where the current ones have failed and who better understand the real meaning of the principles they claim to support."
Update: John points out that an audio recording of Lord Binghamm's speech is also available here.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Government attempt to smear FIPR report
The UK government have been at it again. Instead of engaging with the constructive criticism of their mass surveillance approach to child safety contained in the FIPR report for the Information Commissioner, Children's Minister, Beverley Hughes, decided to attack the report with vague claims of factual inaccuracies, in a letter to the Telegraph on Friday. The report authors have now replied and I hope they don't mind me quoting them in full:
"Sir – Beverley Hughes, the Minister for Children (Letters, November 24), does a disservice to families by an evasive response to our report to the Information Commissioner on the range of databases being set up to monitor children.
She makes a vague claim that the report contains factual inaccuracies, but she does not mention that the chapters on the different databases were sent to her department for checking before publication.
She also suggests that it is not based on evidence, when there is extensive evidence in the report drawn from government publications and interviews with senior officials and practitioners.
The Minister's response misleads by referring only to the Information Sharing Index. This is just the hub of several more detailed databases that will contain highly personal and often subjective information on children and their parents. Moreover, the index will reveal which children are known to other databases and hence provide sensitive information (such as attendance at a special school) to any viewer.
The Information Commissioner has called for a debate on the challenges this policy is posing to traditional family life. The Minister for Children should not duck this challenge. Trying to smear us is not an adequate response.
Dr Eileen Munro, London School of Economics
Professor Ross Anderson, Cambridge University
Dr Ian Brown, University College London
Dr Richard Clayton, Cambridge University
Terri Dowty, Action on Rights for Children
Professor Douwe Korff, London Metropolitan University"
Ms Hughes, by the way, was the Immigration Minister forced to resign in 2004 for making misleading statements about suspected visa fraud. According to the BBC at the time,
"The Tories had accused the Home Office of approving visa claims from eastern Europe despite warnings they were backed by forged documents.
Ms Hughes had dismissed calls to quit, saying she had not known of the claims.
But No 10 said it was now clear she was warned about it a year ago, by Labour deputy chief whip Bob Ainsworth."
"Sir – Beverley Hughes, the Minister for Children (Letters, November 24), does a disservice to families by an evasive response to our report to the Information Commissioner on the range of databases being set up to monitor children.
She makes a vague claim that the report contains factual inaccuracies, but she does not mention that the chapters on the different databases were sent to her department for checking before publication.
She also suggests that it is not based on evidence, when there is extensive evidence in the report drawn from government publications and interviews with senior officials and practitioners.
The Minister's response misleads by referring only to the Information Sharing Index. This is just the hub of several more detailed databases that will contain highly personal and often subjective information on children and their parents. Moreover, the index will reveal which children are known to other databases and hence provide sensitive information (such as attendance at a special school) to any viewer.
The Information Commissioner has called for a debate on the challenges this policy is posing to traditional family life. The Minister for Children should not duck this challenge. Trying to smear us is not an adequate response.
Dr Eileen Munro, London School of Economics
Professor Ross Anderson, Cambridge University
Dr Ian Brown, University College London
Dr Richard Clayton, Cambridge University
Terri Dowty, Action on Rights for Children
Professor Douwe Korff, London Metropolitan University"
Ms Hughes, by the way, was the Immigration Minister forced to resign in 2004 for making misleading statements about suspected visa fraud. According to the BBC at the time,
"The Tories had accused the Home Office of approving visa claims from eastern Europe despite warnings they were backed by forged documents.
Ms Hughes had dismissed calls to quit, saying she had not known of the claims.
But No 10 said it was now clear she was warned about it a year ago, by Labour deputy chief whip Bob Ainsworth."
Friday, November 24, 2006
Retired Brigadier arrested for bringing tiny toolkit on train
Tom Foulks, a retired army officer, was arrested, detained and cautioned recently for attempting to bring a credit card sized toolkit on to a train, a toolkit which has travelled all over the world with him.
"After nearly four hours of processing and questioning I cheerfully admitted the “offence” in order to terminate this tedious ordeal, get back to Waterloo and resume my journey to Paris. Having signed the necessary forms, I was released on caution."
Now that he has such a caution for attempting to smuggle an "offensive weapon" contrary to "Section 1 of PCA 1953", he might well find himself flagged for more detailed security checks on his future travels.
"After nearly four hours of processing and questioning I cheerfully admitted the “offence” in order to terminate this tedious ordeal, get back to Waterloo and resume my journey to Paris. Having signed the necessary forms, I was released on caution."
Now that he has such a caution for attempting to smuggle an "offensive weapon" contrary to "Section 1 of PCA 1953", he might well find himself flagged for more detailed security checks on his future travels.
South Korea and Ireland
Susan Crawford is encouraged by network developments in South Korea and Ireland.
"South Korea made the decision ten years ago to invest in high-speed (competitive) internet access and subsidize cheap PCs -- as a result, they have just about the highest broadband penetration in the world. Not only has the dream come true, but economic growth comes attached.
Meanwhile, someone sent me a Wall Street Journal Europe article about VCs carving up an Irish telephone company to treat transport like a utility. The big guys can watch the model and then think about selling their own networks to raise some cash."
"South Korea made the decision ten years ago to invest in high-speed (competitive) internet access and subsidize cheap PCs -- as a result, they have just about the highest broadband penetration in the world. Not only has the dream come true, but economic growth comes attached.
Meanwhile, someone sent me a Wall Street Journal Europe article about VCs carving up an Irish telephone company to treat transport like a utility. The big guys can watch the model and then think about selling their own networks to raise some cash."
Is Blair exaggerating the threat of terrorism?
Simon Jenkins has been indulging in his favorite sport of Blair-bashing again.
"The west is ruled by a generation of leaders with no experience of war or its threat. Blair and his team cannot recall the aftermath of the second world war, and in the cold war they rushed to join CND. They were distant from those real global horrors. Yet now in power they seem to crave an enemy of equivalent monstrosity. Modern government has a big hole in its ego, yearning to be filled by something called a "threat to security".
After 1990 many hoped that an age of stable peace might dawn. Rich nations might disarm and combine to help the poor, advancing the cause of global responsibility. Instead two of history's most internationalist states, America and Britain, have returned to the trough of conflict, chasing a chimera of "world terrorism", and at ludicrous expense. They have brought death and destruction to a part of the globe that posed no strategic threat. Now one of them, Tony Blair, stands in a patch of desert to claim that "world security in the 21st century" depends on which warlord controls it. Was anything so demented?"
"The west is ruled by a generation of leaders with no experience of war or its threat. Blair and his team cannot recall the aftermath of the second world war, and in the cold war they rushed to join CND. They were distant from those real global horrors. Yet now in power they seem to crave an enemy of equivalent monstrosity. Modern government has a big hole in its ego, yearning to be filled by something called a "threat to security".
After 1990 many hoped that an age of stable peace might dawn. Rich nations might disarm and combine to help the poor, advancing the cause of global responsibility. Instead two of history's most internationalist states, America and Britain, have returned to the trough of conflict, chasing a chimera of "world terrorism", and at ludicrous expense. They have brought death and destruction to a part of the globe that posed no strategic threat. Now one of them, Tony Blair, stands in a patch of desert to claim that "world security in the 21st century" depends on which warlord controls it. Was anything so demented?"
Dear Father Christmas...
Could I have one of these please?
"It's an MP3 player. It's an FM radio. It's video and photo display device. It's an e-book reader. It's a sound recorder. It's a Linux-based personal computer ready for web, email and office usage. Yes, it's Wizpy, the Swiss Army Knife of handheld gadgets announced by Japan's Turbolinux this week."
Sadly they won't be available in my part of the world until February 2007.
"It's an MP3 player. It's an FM radio. It's video and photo display device. It's an e-book reader. It's a sound recorder. It's a Linux-based personal computer ready for web, email and office usage. Yes, it's Wizpy, the Swiss Army Knife of handheld gadgets announced by Japan's Turbolinux this week."
Sadly they won't be available in my part of the world until February 2007.
Ndiyo: Sharing PCs to bridge the digital divide
Andrew Donoghue at ZDNet UK ZDNet has been interviewing John Naughton and Quentin Stafford-Fraser about Ndiyo. Recommended.
Former UK Diplomat Critical of UK foreign policy
Carne Ross, a former high flyer at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, has heavily criticised the government in his Testimony to House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee: Commentary on FCO White Paper "Active Diplomacy" earlier this month. In his conclusions he says:
"In "Active Diplomacy" and in general, the FCO and government proclaim their knowledge of the world and ability to deal with its challenges: here is the world, they say, and here is how we intend to deal with it. It is an illusion comforting to those in government and the public alike. The evidence however suggests that parliament - and indeed the public - is unwise to accord them this responsibility unquestioned. The last few years have been disastrous for British foreign policy, and no one is held to account[3]. The edifice of human rights law and norms, which took half a century of careful work to construct, has been undermined by those who claim to defend it...
14. We are so inured to the rhetoric of anti-terrorism and macho posturing about building democracy while fostering chaos, that it is hard to imagine an alternate direction for British foreign policy. But it is available, as it always was. This alternative lies in consistency of application of international law and a robust defence (including intervention when necessary, as in Kosovo and Sierra Leone) of those under assault or oppression. It lies in remedy to the "diplomatic deficit" whereby those affected by our - and others' - foreign policy have no capacity to influence it while those in whose name policy is carried out - us, the public - also have scant means to affect it. Together, such changes will produce a more just and therefore more stable world...
...the world needs an international system that gives a legitimate voice to all those affected by others' foreign policy... The Prime Minister himself has claimed that Britain stands by the oppressed, wherever they are. It is not too late for the policy reality to match that rhetoric, but it does require change, perhaps even a revolution."
"In "Active Diplomacy" and in general, the FCO and government proclaim their knowledge of the world and ability to deal with its challenges: here is the world, they say, and here is how we intend to deal with it. It is an illusion comforting to those in government and the public alike. The evidence however suggests that parliament - and indeed the public - is unwise to accord them this responsibility unquestioned. The last few years have been disastrous for British foreign policy, and no one is held to account[3]. The edifice of human rights law and norms, which took half a century of careful work to construct, has been undermined by those who claim to defend it...
14. We are so inured to the rhetoric of anti-terrorism and macho posturing about building democracy while fostering chaos, that it is hard to imagine an alternate direction for British foreign policy. But it is available, as it always was. This alternative lies in consistency of application of international law and a robust defence (including intervention when necessary, as in Kosovo and Sierra Leone) of those under assault or oppression. It lies in remedy to the "diplomatic deficit" whereby those affected by our - and others' - foreign policy have no capacity to influence it while those in whose name policy is carried out - us, the public - also have scant means to affect it. Together, such changes will produce a more just and therefore more stable world...
...the world needs an international system that gives a legitimate voice to all those affected by others' foreign policy... The Prime Minister himself has claimed that Britain stands by the oppressed, wherever they are. It is not too late for the policy reality to match that rhetoric, but it does require change, perhaps even a revolution."
Inspired compromise?
The Guardian's Free Our Data blog reports that:
"The European parliament and council of ministers have finally agreed a compromise wording to the Inspire directive designed to harmonise spatial information around Europe. The directive had become a cause celebre in the movement to make public sector data freely available. Broadly, the European parliament backed our position, while the council of ministers was opposed."
"The European parliament and council of ministers have finally agreed a compromise wording to the Inspire directive designed to harmonise spatial information around Europe. The directive had become a cause celebre in the movement to make public sector data freely available. Broadly, the European parliament backed our position, while the council of ministers was opposed."
Article 20 Working Party Conclusions on SWIFT
The EU's Article 29 Working Party (the group of EU privacy commissionsers) has publihsed its opinion on the SWIFT financial data transfers to the US intelligence services. It's pretty damning. Here's some of the highlights:
"In this Opinion the Article 29 Working Party emphasizes that even in the fight against terrorism and crime fundamental rights must remain guaranteed. The Article 29 Working Party insists therefore on the respect of global data protection principles...
Article 29 Working Party comes to the following conclusions:
a) The EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC is applicable to the exchange of personal data via the SWIFTNet FIN service;
b) SWIFT and the financial institutions bear joint responsibility in light of the Directive for the processing of personal data via the SWIFTNet FIN service, with SWIFT bearing primary responsibility and financial institutions bearing some responsibility for the processing of their clients’ personal data.
c) SWIFT and the financial institutions in the EU have failed to respect the provisions of the Directive...
d) The Working Party is of the opinion that the lack of transparency and adequate and
effective control mechanisms that surrounds the whole process of transfer of personal
data first to the US, and then to the UST represents a serious breach in the light of the
Directive. In addition, the guarantees for the transfer of data to a third country as
defined by the Directive and the principles of proportionality and necessity are
violated.
As far as the communication of personal data to the UST is concerned, the Working
Party is of the opinion that the hidden, systematic, massive and long-term transfer of
personal data by SWIFT to the UST in a confidential, non-transparent and systematic
manner for years without effective legal grounds and without the possibility of
independent control by public data protection supervisory authorities constitutes a
violation of the fundamental European principles as regards data protection and is not
in accordance with Belgian and European law...
e) The Working Party recalls once again1 the commitment of democratic societies to
ensure respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. The
individual’s right to protection of personal data forms part of these fundamental rights
and freedoms...
In view of the above, the Working Party therefore calls for the following immediate
actions to be taken to improve the current situation:
a) Cessation of infringements...
b) Return to lawful data processing: The Article 29 Working Party calls upon SWIFT
and the financial institutions to immediately take measures in order to remedy the
currently illegal state of affairs...
c) Actions as regards to SWIFT: For all its data processing activities, SWIFT as a
controller must take the necessary measures to comply with its obligations under
Belgian data protection law implementing the Directive...
e) Actions as regards to Financial institutions: All financial institutions in the EU
using SWIFTNet Fin service including the Central banks have to make sure according
to Articles 10 and 11 of the EU Directive 95/46/EC that their clients are properly
informed about how their personal data are processed and which rights the data
subjects have. They also have to give information about the fact that US authorities
might have access to such data. Data protection supervisory authorities will enforce
these requirements in order to guarantee that they are met by the all financial
institutions on a European level and they will cooperate on harmonized information
notices...
The Working Party also stresses the following:
f) Preservation of our fundamental values in the fight against crime: The Working
Party recalls that any measures taken in the fight against crime and terrorism should
not and must not reduce standards of protection of fundamental rights which
characterise democratic societies. A key element of the fight against terrorism
involves ensuring the preservation of the fundamental rights which are the basis of
democratic societies and the very values that those advocating the use of violence seek to destroy.
g) Global data protection principles: The Working Party considers it essential that the principles for the protection of personal data, including control by independent
supervisory authorities, are fully respected in any framework of global systems of
exchange of information."
Excuse the dodgy formatting. The original press release is only 5 pages and well worth reading in full. The full opinion runs to 29 pages. If you can't find the time to read the full thing take a look at the executive summary and the "IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT SITUATION", particularly item 6.6 on page 29, which repeats item f from the presss release:
"Preservation of our fundamental values in the fight against crime: The Working Party recalls that any measures taken in the fight against crime and terrorism should not and must not reduce standards of protection of
fundamental rights which characterise democratic societies. A key element of the fight against terrorism involves ensuring the preservation of the fundamental rights which are the basis of democratic societies and the very values that those advocating the use of violence seek to destroy."
"In this Opinion the Article 29 Working Party emphasizes that even in the fight against terrorism and crime fundamental rights must remain guaranteed. The Article 29 Working Party insists therefore on the respect of global data protection principles...
Article 29 Working Party comes to the following conclusions:
a) The EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC is applicable to the exchange of personal data via the SWIFTNet FIN service;
b) SWIFT and the financial institutions bear joint responsibility in light of the Directive for the processing of personal data via the SWIFTNet FIN service, with SWIFT bearing primary responsibility and financial institutions bearing some responsibility for the processing of their clients’ personal data.
c) SWIFT and the financial institutions in the EU have failed to respect the provisions of the Directive...
d) The Working Party is of the opinion that the lack of transparency and adequate and
effective control mechanisms that surrounds the whole process of transfer of personal
data first to the US, and then to the UST represents a serious breach in the light of the
Directive. In addition, the guarantees for the transfer of data to a third country as
defined by the Directive and the principles of proportionality and necessity are
violated.
As far as the communication of personal data to the UST is concerned, the Working
Party is of the opinion that the hidden, systematic, massive and long-term transfer of
personal data by SWIFT to the UST in a confidential, non-transparent and systematic
manner for years without effective legal grounds and without the possibility of
independent control by public data protection supervisory authorities constitutes a
violation of the fundamental European principles as regards data protection and is not
in accordance with Belgian and European law...
e) The Working Party recalls once again1 the commitment of democratic societies to
ensure respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. The
individual’s right to protection of personal data forms part of these fundamental rights
and freedoms...
In view of the above, the Working Party therefore calls for the following immediate
actions to be taken to improve the current situation:
a) Cessation of infringements...
b) Return to lawful data processing: The Article 29 Working Party calls upon SWIFT
and the financial institutions to immediately take measures in order to remedy the
currently illegal state of affairs...
c) Actions as regards to SWIFT: For all its data processing activities, SWIFT as a
controller must take the necessary measures to comply with its obligations under
Belgian data protection law implementing the Directive...
e) Actions as regards to Financial institutions: All financial institutions in the EU
using SWIFTNet Fin service including the Central banks have to make sure according
to Articles 10 and 11 of the EU Directive 95/46/EC that their clients are properly
informed about how their personal data are processed and which rights the data
subjects have. They also have to give information about the fact that US authorities
might have access to such data. Data protection supervisory authorities will enforce
these requirements in order to guarantee that they are met by the all financial
institutions on a European level and they will cooperate on harmonized information
notices...
The Working Party also stresses the following:
f) Preservation of our fundamental values in the fight against crime: The Working
Party recalls that any measures taken in the fight against crime and terrorism should
not and must not reduce standards of protection of fundamental rights which
characterise democratic societies. A key element of the fight against terrorism
involves ensuring the preservation of the fundamental rights which are the basis of
democratic societies and the very values that those advocating the use of violence seek to destroy.
g) Global data protection principles: The Working Party considers it essential that the principles for the protection of personal data, including control by independent
supervisory authorities, are fully respected in any framework of global systems of
exchange of information."
Excuse the dodgy formatting. The original press release is only 5 pages and well worth reading in full. The full opinion runs to 29 pages. If you can't find the time to read the full thing take a look at the executive summary and the "IMMEDIATE ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT SITUATION", particularly item 6.6 on page 29, which repeats item f from the presss release:
"Preservation of our fundamental values in the fight against crime: The Working Party recalls that any measures taken in the fight against crime and terrorism should not and must not reduce standards of protection of
fundamental rights which characterise democratic societies. A key element of the fight against terrorism involves ensuring the preservation of the fundamental rights which are the basis of democratic societies and the very values that those advocating the use of violence seek to destroy."
Quote of the day
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free." Ayn Rand.
I wonder what Rand would have made of CCTV, RFIDs, biometric ID cards and passports, mass phone tapping, no fly lists, EULAs, electronic voting, children's databases, software filters, NHS type IT programmes, mass warrantless phone tapping, remote mobile and email and web surfing tracking, to name but a few.
I wonder what Rand would have made of CCTV, RFIDs, biometric ID cards and passports, mass phone tapping, no fly lists, EULAs, electronic voting, children's databases, software filters, NHS type IT programmes, mass warrantless phone tapping, remote mobile and email and web surfing tracking, to name but a few.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Racial Profiling at U.S. Airways
Talkleft has yet another example of irrational and discriminatory behaviour of an airline triggered by the nervousness generated by the "war on terror."
A passenger concerned about the "6 suspicious Arabic men" - six imams praying before boarding a flight - and they were removed in handcuffs and held in detention for hours.
"U.S. Airways refused to book the imams on another flight to Phoenix. According to the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims (both passengers and airline employees) have more complaints about U.S. Airways than other airlines. The incident prompted the Council and the NAACP to ask for Congressional hearings on racial profiling in airports.
Can you imagine the outcry from the religious right if six Christian pastors were removed from a flight because they prayed together at the gate? U.S. Airways would be deservedly out of business in a week."
A passenger concerned about the "6 suspicious Arabic men" - six imams praying before boarding a flight - and they were removed in handcuffs and held in detention for hours.
"U.S. Airways refused to book the imams on another flight to Phoenix. According to the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims (both passengers and airline employees) have more complaints about U.S. Airways than other airlines. The incident prompted the Council and the NAACP to ask for Congressional hearings on racial profiling in airports.
Can you imagine the outcry from the religious right if six Christian pastors were removed from a flight because they prayed together at the gate? U.S. Airways would be deservedly out of business in a week."
ARCH on the Children's Index
ARCH have updated their terrific page on the Children’s Information Sharing (IS) Index. Essential reading for parents and anyone else who comes into contact with kids in a professional or social context. The children's index is shaping up to become more database disaster fodder for academics to study for years to come.
Military Documents Hold Tips on Antiwar Activities
From yesterday's NYT: 'Military Documents Hold Tips on Antiwar Activities' A database called Talon, used by the US Department of Defense has entries on antiwar meetings at churches, libraries and university campuses. The head of the counterintelligence unit responsible for Talon says these details should not be on the database and that those recording such details had misinterpreted the remit of the project.
"Mr. Baur said that those operating the database had misinterpreted their mandate and that what was intended as an antiterrorist database became, in some respects, a catch-all for leads on possible disruptions and threats against military installations in the United States, including protests against the military presence in Iraq."
Of course he doesn't want such details, since they amount to more mountains of data hay polluting his already complex task of finding and sorting through useful intelligence in the existing data haystacks he is aware of.
But that is precisely the point about the operation of mass surveillance in practice. It takes on a life of its own. Operators act defensively collecting and recording even useless data because the perceived cost of missing something is so great. In the mass surveillance era, no amount of data, however seemingly insignificant each individual item might be, will be enough. Now the panic will be over recording and retaining data just in case the security services need it.
The people doing the legwork to feed the databases often find they are not properly briefed or have such a range of pressures guiding their day to day activity that even on the rare occasion when the original objective underlying the construction of the database is clear, the actual practice of operating it hopelessly corrupts the ability to fulfil that objective.
As Ross Anderson is fond of saying, you can have scalability, functionality or security and you can even have two of these simultaneously but not three together.
"Mr. Baur said that those operating the database had misinterpreted their mandate and that what was intended as an antiterrorist database became, in some respects, a catch-all for leads on possible disruptions and threats against military installations in the United States, including protests against the military presence in Iraq."
Of course he doesn't want such details, since they amount to more mountains of data hay polluting his already complex task of finding and sorting through useful intelligence in the existing data haystacks he is aware of.
But that is precisely the point about the operation of mass surveillance in practice. It takes on a life of its own. Operators act defensively collecting and recording even useless data because the perceived cost of missing something is so great. In the mass surveillance era, no amount of data, however seemingly insignificant each individual item might be, will be enough. Now the panic will be over recording and retaining data just in case the security services need it.
The people doing the legwork to feed the databases often find they are not properly briefed or have such a range of pressures guiding their day to day activity that even on the rare occasion when the original objective underlying the construction of the database is clear, the actual practice of operating it hopelessly corrupts the ability to fulfil that objective.
As Ross Anderson is fond of saying, you can have scalability, functionality or security and you can even have two of these simultaneously but not three together.
Youtube video "Charles Nesson is insane"
Charles Nesson at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center has long been thinking along similar lines to Martin Weller about integrating the most modern technologies into his courses.
Nesson has been using wikis, blogs, podcasts, webcasts and Second Life in a course on argument he has been running at Harvard. He would like Martin's notion of taking the ten coolest technologies and building a course around them. Find out what these technologies can really do by playing with them.
Nesson has been using wikis, blogs, podcasts, webcasts and Second Life in a course on argument he has been running at Harvard. He would like Martin's notion of taking the ten coolest technologies and building a course around them. Find out what these technologies can really do by playing with them.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Computer voodoo
Martin has been engaging in some entertaining rituals with his problematic new Toshiba laptop.
"During the whole saga I became aware of two things:
i) The emotional state the rational machine induces in us. I ranged between violent swearing, sobbing, ennui, despair and hysteria as I wrestled over the course of three days with various start-up techniques.
ii) The superstition and irrationality you bring to these problems. At one stage I managed to get it all the way through the start-up process by continually moving the mouse. This became the first of many actions that came to constitute a start-up ritual that any religion would be proud of. Further rites included holding the laptop at an angle (and in one extreme fundamentalist sect even holding over one's head), closing and opening the lid three times and removing the power lead for ten minutes. I can't say these had any objective measure of success, but they had enough promise of success to be worth doing. And computers have become so complex that although I know they were mostly ridiculous, I couldn't be quite sure that they were redundant. They became the IT equivalent of sprinkling the dirt from a grave before midnight over the computer - sure it doesn't work, but hey, it's worth a try."
Hilarious but scary, especially since it brought back haunting memories of my own difficulties with my Toshiba laptop only a few years ago. The magic of the new toy disappeared in the quickly decelerating pace of operations on the machine, the causes of which I never got to the bottom of. In fairness to Toshiba, when the screen blew in the first few months, they quickly replaced it under warranty. If only Martin had videoed some of his more effective voodoo tricks, I might have been able to give them a try.
"During the whole saga I became aware of two things:
i) The emotional state the rational machine induces in us. I ranged between violent swearing, sobbing, ennui, despair and hysteria as I wrestled over the course of three days with various start-up techniques.
ii) The superstition and irrationality you bring to these problems. At one stage I managed to get it all the way through the start-up process by continually moving the mouse. This became the first of many actions that came to constitute a start-up ritual that any religion would be proud of. Further rites included holding the laptop at an angle (and in one extreme fundamentalist sect even holding over one's head), closing and opening the lid three times and removing the power lead for ten minutes. I can't say these had any objective measure of success, but they had enough promise of success to be worth doing. And computers have become so complex that although I know they were mostly ridiculous, I couldn't be quite sure that they were redundant. They became the IT equivalent of sprinkling the dirt from a grave before midnight over the computer - sure it doesn't work, but hey, it's worth a try."
Hilarious but scary, especially since it brought back haunting memories of my own difficulties with my Toshiba laptop only a few years ago. The magic of the new toy disappeared in the quickly decelerating pace of operations on the machine, the causes of which I never got to the bottom of. In fairness to Toshiba, when the screen blew in the first few months, they quickly replaced it under warranty. If only Martin had videoed some of his more effective voodoo tricks, I might have been able to give them a try.
Vista EULA
Mark Rasch at SecurityFocus is concerned about the end user licence that will come with Microsoft's Vista operating system. Recommended reading.
"The terms of the Vista EULA, like the current EULA related to the “Windows Genuine Advantage,” allows Microsoft to unilaterally decide that you have breached the terms of the agreement, and they can essentially disable the software, and possibly deny you access to critical files on your computer without benefit of proof, hearing, testimony or judicial intervention. In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee. Even then, you wont be able to get any damages from Microsoft, and may not even be able to get the cost of the first license back...
Now Microsoft will invariably deny that what they are doing is “self-help.” More likely, they will claim that the disabling provisions of the software are mere “features” of the software. They will also argue that the licensee controls whether or not the code disables by either registering, or “getting Genuine.” But what the boys in Redmond are really doing is deciding that you have not followed the terms of a contract (the EULA) and punishing you unless and until you can prove that you have complied.
And what if Microsoft is wrong, and they disable your software erroneously? Well, you can keep buying and activating their software until you are successful. And that means more fees to Redmond. Or, following the movie “Happy Feet,” you can decide to find software with a little penguin on it."
"The terms of the Vista EULA, like the current EULA related to the “Windows Genuine Advantage,” allows Microsoft to unilaterally decide that you have breached the terms of the agreement, and they can essentially disable the software, and possibly deny you access to critical files on your computer without benefit of proof, hearing, testimony or judicial intervention. In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee. Even then, you wont be able to get any damages from Microsoft, and may not even be able to get the cost of the first license back...
Now Microsoft will invariably deny that what they are doing is “self-help.” More likely, they will claim that the disabling provisions of the software are mere “features” of the software. They will also argue that the licensee controls whether or not the code disables by either registering, or “getting Genuine.” But what the boys in Redmond are really doing is deciding that you have not followed the terms of a contract (the EULA) and punishing you unless and until you can prove that you have complied.
And what if Microsoft is wrong, and they disable your software erroneously? Well, you can keep buying and activating their software until you are successful. And that means more fees to Redmond. Or, following the movie “Happy Feet,” you can decide to find software with a little penguin on it."
Hands off our fingers!
Henry Porter is in full flight at the Guardian again today, this time regarding the new gadget the police are using to check fingerprints by the roadside.
"It must be clear that if the police are demanding fingerprints today,
they will be asking for our papers (ID cards) tomorrow, a notion that
would have been unthinkable in Britain 10 years ago. Yet now we seem to
accept that the authorities have these new rights over us and that we
must simply roll over and go along with this oppressive behaviour.
Every part of me recoils from these developments. I go on complaining
and making the case that a profound change is underway which is not a
matter of debate, but of actuality. We are living this revolution. Our
apathy and complacency enables it. One day our children and
grandchildren will look back and wonder what on earth was going through
our minds; how we lost our faith in liberty, which when it comes down to
it will be the story of how we lost our self respect as citizens.
Unless many more understand what is going on with the nightmarish
clarity that afflicts some of us, and they start campaigning and doing
everything they possibly can to reassert individual rights, the fight
will eventually be lost. "
Read the original in full.
"It must be clear that if the police are demanding fingerprints today,
they will be asking for our papers (ID cards) tomorrow, a notion that
would have been unthinkable in Britain 10 years ago. Yet now we seem to
accept that the authorities have these new rights over us and that we
must simply roll over and go along with this oppressive behaviour.
Every part of me recoils from these developments. I go on complaining
and making the case that a profound change is underway which is not a
matter of debate, but of actuality. We are living this revolution. Our
apathy and complacency enables it. One day our children and
grandchildren will look back and wonder what on earth was going through
our minds; how we lost our faith in liberty, which when it comes down to
it will be the story of how we lost our self respect as citizens.
Unless many more understand what is going on with the nightmarish
clarity that afflicts some of us, and they start campaigning and doing
everything they possibly can to reassert individual rights, the fight
will eventually be lost. "
Read the original in full.
Lawsuit alleges evoting negligence in Florida
The EFF are amongst the complainants in a lawsuit alleging evoting negligence in Florida. I understand that David Jefferson and Dan Wallach are amongst the technical experts working on the case.
The lawsuit is calling for a re-run of the election in that area because nearly 20000 ballots didn't register a vote in the county's House of Representatives race. Even if independent experts do get to examine the machines involved, they may not be able to determine whether there was malicious code used, since as Ed Felten and others have ably demonstrated, such code can erase itself once the damage is done.
That the ACLU, the EFF and a number of other advocacy groups are putting scarce resources into this case might mean it has the kind of detailed facts making it a good test case to break through significant barriers with evoting, such as the vendors using secret software. It should be an interesting one to watch, as the current state of affairs with evoting in the US is unsustainable.
The lawsuit is calling for a re-run of the election in that area because nearly 20000 ballots didn't register a vote in the county's House of Representatives race. Even if independent experts do get to examine the machines involved, they may not be able to determine whether there was malicious code used, since as Ed Felten and others have ably demonstrated, such code can erase itself once the damage is done.
That the ACLU, the EFF and a number of other advocacy groups are putting scarce resources into this case might mean it has the kind of detailed facts making it a good test case to break through significant barriers with evoting, such as the vendors using secret software. It should be an interesting one to watch, as the current state of affairs with evoting in the US is unsustainable.
MacDonalds want patent on making a sandwich
MacDonalds have, according to the Guardian, applied for a patent, in the US and EU (in 55 pages of legalese), on making a sandwich. That deserves a prominent spot at Totally Absurd Inventions.
Thanks to Louise bia the ORG list for the pointer.
Thanks to Louise bia the ORG list for the pointer.
Haloscan filtering on this blog
Spyblog has been blocked from posting a comment to this blog by Haloscan. As someone who is forever getting snared by blunt software filters because of the title and url of this blog, I am not pleased. I have written to Haloscan to ask for an explanation.
Children's Databases: Safety and Privacy
The Foundation for Information Policy Research are releasing a report today for the Information Commissioner entitled Children's Databases: Safety and Privacy explaining that the government's blanket surveillance approach to child safety is actually going to put children at risk.
The reports authors are:
Professor Ross Anderson, University of Cambridge,
Terri Dowty, Director, Action on Rights for Children,
Dr Richard Clayton, University of Cambridge,
Professor Douwe Korff, London Metropolitan University,
Dr Eileen Munro, London School of Economics,
Dr Ian Brown, UCL,
so you can guarantee it is worth reading.
Elsewhere on a similar theme, the New Statesman decided not to publish this excellent article from Dave Hill about the Children's Index. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall at the New Statesman editorial meeting which decided not to run with the article.
Update: The report is now available and various corners of the media have picked up on it. It highlights five main concerns with the government's mass surveillance "solution" to child safety:
1. The government's strategy will divert resources and attention away from
frontline services;
2. The government hopes that sharing information from health,
education, social care and youth justice systems will enable it to
predict which children will become criminals. But predictions can
be highly fallible, and labelling children can stigmatise them.
Children 'fingered' by the computer as 'bad' may find that their
teachers have lower expectations, while the police may be more
likely to treat them as suspects rather than witnesses;
3. Moving responsibility from teachers, doctors and social workers to
a central system will also erode parental responsibility. Parents
and children's views will be more easily sidelined. The policy
involves micromanaged targets for every child, with responsibility
for achieving them placed on children's services, rather than
parents -- even down to meeting 'performance indicators' about the
amount of fruit and vegetables eaten and participation in
voluntary work;
4. Children will be bullied into providing intrusive data on
themselves, their parents and friends without proper safeguards,
and into giving their 'consent' to widespread data sharing without
involvement of their parents, in contravention of the law;
5. Families' privacy and autonomy will be corroded as the government
puts them under surveillance. The new policy will treat all
parents as if they cannot be trusted to bring up their children
and to ask for help if and when needed.
A Department for Education and Skills (DfES) spokesman is quoted by the BBC as saying: "We have some serious reservations about this report's objectivity and evidence base" which is actually quite funny when you look at the extensive list of government documents, listed in the footnotes, which the authors base their analysis and conclusions on. The DfES is trying to spin it by saying the report was done for the Information Commissioner but does not represent his views yet he has repeatedly made many of the same points when talking publicly about the government strategy in this area. No doubt he is coming under pressure in private to sideline the report but that just wouldn't wash, even in the highly unlikely event that the Information Commissioner was influenced by such pressure. The report is a thoroughly comprehensive, impeccable study by some of the most knowledgable people in the field. The government would do well to reign in its usual reflex response to constructive feedback and take note of the findings. Sadly I fear there will be pigs flying over Whitehall under their own volition before we see such positive engagement from the current incumbents.
The reports authors are:
Professor Ross Anderson, University of Cambridge,
Terri Dowty, Director, Action on Rights for Children,
Dr Richard Clayton, University of Cambridge,
Professor Douwe Korff, London Metropolitan University,
Dr Eileen Munro, London School of Economics,
Dr Ian Brown, UCL,
so you can guarantee it is worth reading.
Elsewhere on a similar theme, the New Statesman decided not to publish this excellent article from Dave Hill about the Children's Index. It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall at the New Statesman editorial meeting which decided not to run with the article.
Update: The report is now available and various corners of the media have picked up on it. It highlights five main concerns with the government's mass surveillance "solution" to child safety:
1. The government's strategy will divert resources and attention away from
frontline services;
2. The government hopes that sharing information from health,
education, social care and youth justice systems will enable it to
predict which children will become criminals. But predictions can
be highly fallible, and labelling children can stigmatise them.
Children 'fingered' by the computer as 'bad' may find that their
teachers have lower expectations, while the police may be more
likely to treat them as suspects rather than witnesses;
3. Moving responsibility from teachers, doctors and social workers to
a central system will also erode parental responsibility. Parents
and children's views will be more easily sidelined. The policy
involves micromanaged targets for every child, with responsibility
for achieving them placed on children's services, rather than
parents -- even down to meeting 'performance indicators' about the
amount of fruit and vegetables eaten and participation in
voluntary work;
4. Children will be bullied into providing intrusive data on
themselves, their parents and friends without proper safeguards,
and into giving their 'consent' to widespread data sharing without
involvement of their parents, in contravention of the law;
5. Families' privacy and autonomy will be corroded as the government
puts them under surveillance. The new policy will treat all
parents as if they cannot be trusted to bring up their children
and to ask for help if and when needed.
A Department for Education and Skills (DfES) spokesman is quoted by the BBC as saying: "We have some serious reservations about this report's objectivity and evidence base" which is actually quite funny when you look at the extensive list of government documents, listed in the footnotes, which the authors base their analysis and conclusions on. The DfES is trying to spin it by saying the report was done for the Information Commissioner but does not represent his views yet he has repeatedly made many of the same points when talking publicly about the government strategy in this area. No doubt he is coming under pressure in private to sideline the report but that just wouldn't wash, even in the highly unlikely event that the Information Commissioner was influenced by such pressure. The report is a thoroughly comprehensive, impeccable study by some of the most knowledgable people in the field. The government would do well to reign in its usual reflex response to constructive feedback and take note of the findings. Sadly I fear there will be pigs flying over Whitehall under their own volition before we see such positive engagement from the current incumbents.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
From 7 laws of identity to 7 laws of privacy
Ontario Privacy Commissioner, Anne Cavoukian, has taken Kim Cameron's 7 laws of identity and derived 7 laws of privacy from them. What a good idea.
Welsh Dragon Sausages worry trading standards
According to IPKat, trading stadards officers in Wales are concerned that consumers might be misled by a food company, Black Mountains Smokery's 'Welsh Dragon' sausages, since they contain pork rather than dragon. Apparently officials have also said they wouldn't want vegetarians to think the sausages were meat free.
Podcast interview with Schneier
Dave Birch's podcast interview with Bruce Schneier is available at the Digital Identity Forum.
Home educator writes to Education Secretary
Home educator, Carlotta, has written a an excellent letter to Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, on the government's list of initiatives related to children.
Suspect Nation
Henry Porter did a nice documentary on More4 yesterday evening giving a broad ranging introduction to surveillance technologies like CCTV, ID cards, RFIDs, no fly lists, biometrics and mobile phones, and the blanket secret wiretapping in the US.
He even got Al Gore to quote Bruce Schneier's line about mass data collection being like trying to find a needle in a haystack by throwing more hay on the stack. Despite having written about the issues for a long time, he seemed somewhat amazed towards the end, when Adam Laurie demonstrated just how easily all the data being gathered can be accessed by a third party. Laurie showed the results of hacking into a CCTV system filming Porter on the streets of London, secretly recording Porter's conversation with another journalist by taking remote control of a mobile phone and breaking the security on the biometric chip on the new UK passports.
The programme is being repeated tomorrow evening at 10pm.
Update: Spyblog has kindly pointed out that I got the timing of the repeat wrong. It is due to be repeated Wednesday, 29th November at 10pm. Unfortunately his comment here got blocked by Haloscan filters. Grrr. I'm getting really fed up again with stupid software filters and will be asking Haloscan for an explanation as well as encouraging them to put the situation right.
He even got Al Gore to quote Bruce Schneier's line about mass data collection being like trying to find a needle in a haystack by throwing more hay on the stack. Despite having written about the issues for a long time, he seemed somewhat amazed towards the end, when Adam Laurie demonstrated just how easily all the data being gathered can be accessed by a third party. Laurie showed the results of hacking into a CCTV system filming Porter on the streets of London, secretly recording Porter's conversation with another journalist by taking remote control of a mobile phone and breaking the security on the biometric chip on the new UK passports.
The programme is being repeated tomorrow evening at 10pm.
Update: Spyblog has kindly pointed out that I got the timing of the repeat wrong. It is due to be repeated Wednesday, 29th November at 10pm. Unfortunately his comment here got blocked by Haloscan filters. Grrr. I'm getting really fed up again with stupid software filters and will be asking Haloscan for an explanation as well as encouraging them to put the situation right.
Monday, November 20, 2006
The seed gestapo
Jonathan Rowe has been ruminating on grains of rice that are set aside and used as seeds in the next planting season and the impact of modern intellectual property law. Recommended reading.
Videos in cars
Robert Cringely has built a video player for his minivan and wonders why Sony or come like minded tech co. had not already thought of it.
NATO expert on Cyberterror
Ian Brown has been taking notes at a NATO-Russia round-table on cyberterror a couple of weeks ago. Essential reading.
National Academy for Parenting Practitioners
The government are now going to set up a National Academy for Parenting Practitioners.
Meanwhile the childminder is wondering about the government's committment to their every child matters agenda and a group of youngsters are dneied permission to enter the Lowry exhibition in Salford.
The UK has gone barking mad when it comes to dealing with children. Given that kids are growing up in a society that treats them either as total pariahs or innocent victims who need protection at all costs, it is remarkable that we have such a largely well adjusted young populace.
Thanks to ARCH for the links.
Meanwhile the childminder is wondering about the government's committment to their every child matters agenda and a group of youngsters are dneied permission to enter the Lowry exhibition in Salford.
The UK has gone barking mad when it comes to dealing with children. Given that kids are growing up in a society that treats them either as total pariahs or innocent victims who need protection at all costs, it is remarkable that we have such a largely well adjusted young populace.
Thanks to ARCH for the links.
UK copyright term extension proposals
James Boyle has a wonderful article in the FT on the music industry proposals to extend the term of copyright for sound recordings in the UK.
"The whole idea is very stupid. But if this is the stupid idea we wish to pursue, then simply increase the income tax proportionately and distribute the benefits to those record companies and musicians whose music is still commercially available after 50 years. Require them to put the money into developing new artists – something the current proposal does not. Let all the other recordings pass into the public domain.
Of course, no government commission would consider such an idea for a moment. Tax the public to give a monopoly windfall to those who already hit the jackpot, because they claim their industry cannot survive without retrospectively changing the terms of its deals? It is laughable. Indeed it is. Yet it is a better, saner proposal than the one before us. Which tells us something about the current state of copyright policy."
"The whole idea is very stupid. But if this is the stupid idea we wish to pursue, then simply increase the income tax proportionately and distribute the benefits to those record companies and musicians whose music is still commercially available after 50 years. Require them to put the money into developing new artists – something the current proposal does not. Let all the other recordings pass into the public domain.
Of course, no government commission would consider such an idea for a moment. Tax the public to give a monopoly windfall to those who already hit the jackpot, because they claim their industry cannot survive without retrospectively changing the terms of its deals? It is laughable. Indeed it is. Yet it is a better, saner proposal than the one before us. Which tells us something about the current state of copyright policy."
Universal sue MySpace
Universal has sued MySpace over postings of copyrighted music videos. The complaint is available at Findlaw, though not in a particularly user friendly format.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Fingerprint required for car hire at Stansted
The BBC are reporting that car hire firms at Stansted now require a fingerprint from every customer, allegedly for security reasons.
"If you want to hire a car at Stansted Airport, you now need to give a fingerprint.
The scheme being tested by Essex police and car hire firms, is not voluntary. Every car rental customer must take part.
These are stored by the hire firms - and will be handed over to the police if the car is stolen or used for another crime"
A CID spokesman said criminal gangs had been targetting car hire firms at the airport and that:
"It's not intrusive really. It's different - and people need to adjust to it. It's not Big Brother, it's about protecting people's identities. The police will never see these thumbprints unless a crime is committed."
His statement is understandable coming from a police officer with a serious car theft problem on his beat but it is flawed from a security perspective. The 'treat everybody as if they are a criminal because a small percentage of people engage in criminal activity' approach is not sustainable from a security or a societal perspective. The activity is intrusive; people do not need to adjust to it and can choose not to hire cars at Stansted; it will not protect people's identities and in fact exposes them to identity theft by car hire company insiders or those who gain access to their databases; and as for the police only seeing the thumprints once a crime is committed, well the security damage is already done as far as the individual is conerned long before any crime has been committed. Will it stop criminal gangs targetting the car hire firms? I doubt it but they may adjust their modus operandi in future, which I guess, from the police officer's perspective is a partially successful outcome i.e. the disruption of the criminal activity.
"If you want to hire a car at Stansted Airport, you now need to give a fingerprint.
The scheme being tested by Essex police and car hire firms, is not voluntary. Every car rental customer must take part.
These are stored by the hire firms - and will be handed over to the police if the car is stolen or used for another crime"
A CID spokesman said criminal gangs had been targetting car hire firms at the airport and that:
"It's not intrusive really. It's different - and people need to adjust to it. It's not Big Brother, it's about protecting people's identities. The police will never see these thumbprints unless a crime is committed."
His statement is understandable coming from a police officer with a serious car theft problem on his beat but it is flawed from a security perspective. The 'treat everybody as if they are a criminal because a small percentage of people engage in criminal activity' approach is not sustainable from a security or a societal perspective. The activity is intrusive; people do not need to adjust to it and can choose not to hire cars at Stansted; it will not protect people's identities and in fact exposes them to identity theft by car hire company insiders or those who gain access to their databases; and as for the police only seeing the thumprints once a crime is committed, well the security damage is already done as far as the individual is conerned long before any crime has been committed. Will it stop criminal gangs targetting the car hire firms? I doubt it but they may adjust their modus operandi in future, which I guess, from the police officer's perspective is a partially successful outcome i.e. the disruption of the criminal activity.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Back to the Future: sealed and delivered
I finally completed the book and delivered it to the publishers, Springer-Verlag London Ltd., yesterday. It was good to meet the folks I had been corresponding with via email. They seem very tuned in to issues of open access, visibility and the value of the long tail. I was also pleased to hear that they will be making one or two chapters of the book openly available online once it gets published.
Executive Editor, Beverley Ford and Sales Director, David Anderson even treated me to lunch, which was very decent. David suggested we change the title from 'Back to the Future: Digital Decision Making' to 'Digital Decision Making: Back to the Future', which I had no objections to, though I'd still be interested in the opinions of readers of this blog on the change.
Whilst I was being wined and dined, Jo Cooling and Helen Desmond were dissecting my printed manuscript and we had a meeting about it after lunch. They seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the final result and did a great job of making a new author feel he might have produced something worthwhile.
Beverley was interested in what my next book might be which I guess is a good sign and she asked me how I felt now the first one was completed. I told her I'd let her know today. I'm not sure it has even sunk in yet, though. Which reminds me - I have a leak in the kitchen that I've been promising to fix for the past ten days and I no longer have the excuse that I have a book to finish, so I'd better get on with it.
Executive Editor, Beverley Ford and Sales Director, David Anderson even treated me to lunch, which was very decent. David suggested we change the title from 'Back to the Future: Digital Decision Making' to 'Digital Decision Making: Back to the Future', which I had no objections to, though I'd still be interested in the opinions of readers of this blog on the change.
Whilst I was being wined and dined, Jo Cooling and Helen Desmond were dissecting my printed manuscript and we had a meeting about it after lunch. They seemed genuinely enthusiastic about the final result and did a great job of making a new author feel he might have produced something worthwhile.
Beverley was interested in what my next book might be which I guess is a good sign and she asked me how I felt now the first one was completed. I told her I'd let her know today. I'm not sure it has even sunk in yet, though. Which reminds me - I have a leak in the kitchen that I've been promising to fix for the past ten days and I no longer have the excuse that I have a book to finish, so I'd better get on with it.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
ID card mystery-benefits approach by Home Office
William Heath finds the latest assertion by the Home Office on ID cards "beyond parody." This week I'm finishing off a book, one of the main messages of which is that before you build a big complex information system, you need to know what it is for. The virtual reality world surrounding the government on this scheme goes way beyond anything that the most imaginative gaming programmer has ever produced.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Chefs want in on the IP protetectionist game
Ed Foster at the Infoworld gripeline has beenpondering a Recipe for Intellectual Property Madness. It seems that chefs now want a slice of the intellectual property protectionist cake.
Thanks to James Love for the link.
Thanks to James Love for the link.
Friday, October 13, 2006
House of Lords ruling in Jameel defamation case
The House of Lords have issued a ruling in the Jameel v Wall Street Journal Net defamation case. I don't have the time to analyse it at the moment but it is being reported as a relaxation of the strict libel code in the UK.
Update: the decision is also available at BAILLI.
Update: the decision is also available at BAILLI.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Copyright and the environment
Michael Geist has been musing on the parallels between copyright and environmental politics. He must have been reading James Boyle's work recently, particularly the wonderful Shamans, Software and Spleens.
A central theme of my book, Back to the Future: Digital Decision Making, which is due with the publishers at the end of this month, is the parallels between environmental decision making and decision making surrounding the creation, deployment and regulation of complex information systems. It's nearly done and I'm looking forward to handing it over but there is still a fair bit of formatting, indexing etc. still to do, so I'd better get back to it!
A central theme of my book, Back to the Future: Digital Decision Making, which is due with the publishers at the end of this month, is the parallels between environmental decision making and decision making surrounding the creation, deployment and regulation of complex information systems. It's nearly done and I'm looking forward to handing it over but there is still a fair bit of formatting, indexing etc. still to do, so I'd better get back to it!
Friday, October 06, 2006
Book sales boost from Google book search
Reuters are reporting that book sales have received a boost from Google's book search project.
Google to Subpoena Yahoo, Microsoft on Book Scanning
From Bloomberg Google to Subpoena Yahoo, Microsoft on Book Scanning In its dispute with publishers Google is looking for information from Yahoo and Microsoft to help fight the case.
Chitty Chitty sue sue
Part of chapter 2 of my book covers some copyright disputes over children's literature and I often look out for any news of these kinds of cases. The latest in a long line of cases has just been heard in the US in a dispute over the rights to the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang film. The judge has said the issues are substantive and told the two sides to prepare for trial. It will be an interesting one to watch.
Incidentally if you do have children I highly recommend Ian Flemming's original book, which is significantly different to the film.
Update: By coincidence the trustees of the Great Ormond Street Hospital have just launched the official sequel to Peter Pan, Peter Pan in Scarlet by Geraldine McCaughrean. The Peter Pan copyright disputes, such as that surrounding Emily Somma's unauthorised sequel, After the Rain, have been amongst the most interesting.
Incidentally if you do have children I highly recommend Ian Flemming's original book, which is significantly different to the film.
Update: By coincidence the trustees of the Great Ormond Street Hospital have just launched the official sequel to Peter Pan, Peter Pan in Scarlet by Geraldine McCaughrean. The Peter Pan copyright disputes, such as that surrounding Emily Somma's unauthorised sequel, After the Rain, have been amongst the most interesting.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Who wrote that song
Interesting essay by lawyer, Pete Gutmann, Who Really Wrote that Song? (A tale of copyrights and Wrongs) about the legal dispute between Chuck Berry and Johnnie Johnson.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Unlawful play
From the excellent folks at ARCH:
"Liberal England quotes Professor Armstrong on the need to get children more active, rather than restricting their food intake.
We're looking at police retention of children's DNA at the moment, and came across a story about 3 children arrested for criminal damage when they were trying to build a treehouse. In the summer, there was another one about children in trouble for making the pavement messy when they played hopscotch. We've mentioned the York 'Nipper' database before - amongst other things it collects details of children's 'inconsiderate' behaviour such as 'playing ball games in the street'. There's plenty more stories, but you get the picture.
Maybe it's not children's behaviour that needs to change."
"Liberal England quotes Professor Armstrong on the need to get children more active, rather than restricting their food intake.
We're looking at police retention of children's DNA at the moment, and came across a story about 3 children arrested for criminal damage when they were trying to build a treehouse. In the summer, there was another one about children in trouble for making the pavement messy when they played hopscotch. We've mentioned the York 'Nipper' database before - amongst other things it collects details of children's 'inconsiderate' behaviour such as 'playing ball games in the street'. There's plenty more stories, but you get the picture.
Maybe it's not children's behaviour that needs to change."
House vote to expand electronic spying
Anne Broache at CNet reports that the House of Representatives have voted to expand electronic sureveillance without a warrant. President Bush will be pleased.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Text of the Law Profs' Letter v Torture Bill
Michael Froomkin has posted the text of an open letter against the impending Bush-McCain Torture Bill. Recommended reading, as is the Lord Chancellor's suggestions that the US and the UK may be diverging in their approach to torture and the war on terror. Lord Falcolner has launched a campaign to defend the Human Rights Act against critics.
PNR data, the EU, the US and the Beeb
I was surprised one evening last week when I saw the top story on the BBC Ten O'Clock news was the negotiations between the US and EU over the technical difficulties - the slight matter of the European Court of Justice declaring the activity illegal, following a challenge by the EU parliament - the EU now have with airlines handing over passenger details to the US security services.
They got all the details wrong, misunderstood what the whole thing was about and painted it as a 'complete breakdown' between the EU and the US. But that the Beeb's TV news had it billed as a top story, which is fairly unusual for one of such technical and legal complexity, was almost enough to forgive the errors. The Register has a short piece on the story today.
They got all the details wrong, misunderstood what the whole thing was about and painted it as a 'complete breakdown' between the EU and the US. But that the Beeb's TV news had it billed as a top story, which is fairly unusual for one of such technical and legal complexity, was almost enough to forgive the errors. The Register has a short piece on the story today.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Tony Blair's barcode mustache
Guardian readers will have already seen it but the NO2ID folks have been having a go at Tony Blair again.
"Tony Blair is not Hitler. But he is building the tools of totalitarianism. The identity scheme he is pushing is more controlling than any Europe has seen before. He can give no guarantee how it may be used in his lifetime, let alone the lifetimes of our children.
Some practical freedoms - personal privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, going about our business without need for official permit - are so familiar to us that they are unnoticed, like breathing. This ID scheme will choke them. It seeks to replace the trust in our society with formal validation by officials.
Numbered, indexed and tagged, your identity subject to approval, the simplest things in life will no longer be under your control. Tony may have faith in the future, but who else will have that power? In 10 years? In 20? In what back room?"
"Tony Blair is not Hitler. But he is building the tools of totalitarianism. The identity scheme he is pushing is more controlling than any Europe has seen before. He can give no guarantee how it may be used in his lifetime, let alone the lifetimes of our children.
Some practical freedoms - personal privacy, confidentiality, anonymity, going about our business without need for official permit - are so familiar to us that they are unnoticed, like breathing. This ID scheme will choke them. It seeks to replace the trust in our society with formal validation by officials.
Numbered, indexed and tagged, your identity subject to approval, the simplest things in life will no longer be under your control. Tony may have faith in the future, but who else will have that power? In 10 years? In 20? In what back room?"
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Drug companies lobby ministers
The Guardian has a front page story today on pharmaceutical companies lobbying of ministers both to encourage fast track approval of their drugs through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) assessment process and to complain that NICE were not very nice in turning down, for example, Pfizer's Alzheimer's drug on the grounds that it was no more effective than existing treatments and too expensive. The top executives have also been hinting that unless the UK steps in line they might take their business elsewhere.
This is absolutely standard practice for the big pharmacuetical sector, lest anyone be too shocked. If you are interested in the activities of pharmaceutical companies then I'd highly recommend Information Feudalism by Peter Drahos and The Truth About Drug Companies by Marcia Angell. In business the key perspective to understand is that concerned with maximising shareholder value. The means to that end, sadly, are somewhat incidental.
This is absolutely standard practice for the big pharmacuetical sector, lest anyone be too shocked. If you are interested in the activities of pharmaceutical companies then I'd highly recommend Information Feudalism by Peter Drahos and The Truth About Drug Companies by Marcia Angell. In business the key perspective to understand is that concerned with maximising shareholder value. The means to that end, sadly, are somewhat incidental.
Summary judgement v Streamcast in Grokster
The US District Court for the Central District of California has just issued a summary judgement holding Streamcast liable for inducement of copyright infringement in the Grokster case. On page 30 of the judgement:
"Plaintiffs need not prove that Streamcast undertook specific actions, beyond product distribution, that caused specific acts of infringement. Instead Plaintiffs need only prove that Streamcast distributed the product with intent to encourage infringement."
Which is pretty much what the Supreme Court said in Grokster. The District Court go on to say Streamcast technology was "used overwhelmingly for infringement" and their
Game set and match to the entertainment industry, which following the Supreme Court's ruling in Grokster last year was pretty much inevitable.
Thanks to Mark Lemley on the Cyberprofs listserv for the copy of the judgement. It will no doubt be widely available on the Net soon, if it is not already there.
Update: The EFF have a link to the judgement
"Plaintiffs need not prove that Streamcast undertook specific actions, beyond product distribution, that caused specific acts of infringement. Instead Plaintiffs need only prove that Streamcast distributed the product with intent to encourage infringement."
Which is pretty much what the Supreme Court said in Grokster. The District Court go on to say Streamcast technology was "used overwhelmingly for infringement" and their
- targetting of Napster users
- technical assistance to users with copyright infringing content (like Seinfeld and the Matrix)
- active steps in developing the technology to enable infringing use (e.g. in beta testing the software they identified insignificant availabilty of infringing content as a problem)
- their business model relied on income from infringing use
- lack of effort to prevent infringing use
Game set and match to the entertainment industry, which following the Supreme Court's ruling in Grokster last year was pretty much inevitable.
Thanks to Mark Lemley on the Cyberprofs listserv for the copy of the judgement. It will no doubt be widely available on the Net soon, if it is not already there.
Update: The EFF have a link to the judgement
Italian wiretapping
The latest EDRI-gram recommends reading the British Academy's recent copyright report and has some more information on the Italian wiretapping scandal
"The chaotic way in which the public authorities have dealt with the situation is underlined in several articles that show the state institutions have reacted very late and only when their leaders' personal interests might have been at stake.
Andrea Monti from EDRI-member ALCEI has correctly underlined that the Italian Data Protection Commission, which should have controlled this market has only "succeeded" in sending a press release. He also points out that, contrary to the most spread common opinions that the "hackers", "pirates" and "direct marketing multinational companies" are those targeting our personal data, the authors of the biggest problems related to the misuse of information are actually insiders, not very technical, such as members of the Police and Information Services."
Makes you wonder about the parallels with the NSA domestic spying programme authorised by president Bush. The problem is not the huge majority of decent public servants working for these agencies but the few intent on corrupting or exploiting the system for their own nefarious ends. Ed Felten makes the same point in relation to Diebold's criticism of his paper pointing out a Diebold evoting machine is insecure. In addition Diebold have been complaining that it is unfair to claim their machines are insecure since they are never networked, yet the user manual for the machines tested by Felten and co. state that "Results [of elections] are transferred are [sic] by means of a TCP/IP network connection, either directly, by modem or ethernet." And as Felten points out anyway:
"Diebold’s insistence that the voting machines cannot be networked is especially odd given that the conclusions in our report don’t rely in any way on the use of networking — even if Diebold’s no-networking claim were true, it would be irrelevant."
"The chaotic way in which the public authorities have dealt with the situation is underlined in several articles that show the state institutions have reacted very late and only when their leaders' personal interests might have been at stake.
Andrea Monti from EDRI-member ALCEI has correctly underlined that the Italian Data Protection Commission, which should have controlled this market has only "succeeded" in sending a press release. He also points out that, contrary to the most spread common opinions that the "hackers", "pirates" and "direct marketing multinational companies" are those targeting our personal data, the authors of the biggest problems related to the misuse of information are actually insiders, not very technical, such as members of the Police and Information Services."
Makes you wonder about the parallels with the NSA domestic spying programme authorised by president Bush. The problem is not the huge majority of decent public servants working for these agencies but the few intent on corrupting or exploiting the system for their own nefarious ends. Ed Felten makes the same point in relation to Diebold's criticism of his paper pointing out a Diebold evoting machine is insecure. In addition Diebold have been complaining that it is unfair to claim their machines are insecure since they are never networked, yet the user manual for the machines tested by Felten and co. state that "Results [of elections] are transferred are [sic] by means of a TCP/IP network connection, either directly, by modem or ethernet." And as Felten points out anyway:
"Diebold’s insistence that the voting machines cannot be networked is especially odd given that the conclusions in our report don’t rely in any way on the use of networking — even if Diebold’s no-networking claim were true, it would be irrelevant."
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Groklaw: the british library gets it on drm
Regular readers will remember Pamela Jones anger at the British Libary's adoption of restrictive policies and Microsoft drm in their deployment of information systems to handle electronic materials. She's now changed her mind about their perspective on drm because of their recently issued IP manifesto (pdf). The Library's press release gives a neat summary. Pamela Jones says:
"I wish to say thank you to the British Library for issuing this document.
The IP Manifesto's key recommendations include, quoting from the press release:
* Existing limitations and exceptions to copyright law should be extended to encompass unambiguously the digital environment;
* Licenses providing access to digital material should not undermine longstanding limitations and exceptions such as ‘fair dealing';
* The right to copy material for preservation purposes – a core duty of all national libraries – should be extended to all copyrightable works;
* The copyright term for sound recordings should not be extended without empirical evidence of the benefits and due consideration of the needs of society as a whole;
* The US model for dealing with ‘orphan works' should be considered for the UK;
* The length of copyright term for unpublished works should be brought into line with other terms (ie: life plus 70 years).
In other words, copyright law should not change in the digital environment, and if it doesn't change, then fair dealing and fair use are just as applicable there. Here's the press release. This sentence says it all: "Licenses providing access to digital material should not undermine longstanding limitations and exceptions such as ‘fair dealing.'" And here's another angle to the story.
I am so thrilled, I can't even express myself."
I said at the time of her original essay that she was probably being a little harsh on the good folks at the British Library, since their director, Clive Field, had already publicly expressed his concerns about drm potentially causing digital lockdown of libaries; and though this is an excellent initiative from them it won't make the issues surrounding the adoption of the Microsoft drm at the Library go away. The reality of the day to day deployment and managing of complex information systems tends to be far removed from well intended high level policies and it is important that things are right at the operational level as well as the policy level. The very nature of the institution, however, means that it is crammed full of dedicated people who will, hopefully, tip the balance in terms of killing off their operational drm strictures in the longer term.
"I wish to say thank you to the British Library for issuing this document.
The IP Manifesto's key recommendations include, quoting from the press release:
* Existing limitations and exceptions to copyright law should be extended to encompass unambiguously the digital environment;
* Licenses providing access to digital material should not undermine longstanding limitations and exceptions such as ‘fair dealing';
* The right to copy material for preservation purposes – a core duty of all national libraries – should be extended to all copyrightable works;
* The copyright term for sound recordings should not be extended without empirical evidence of the benefits and due consideration of the needs of society as a whole;
* The US model for dealing with ‘orphan works' should be considered for the UK;
* The length of copyright term for unpublished works should be brought into line with other terms (ie: life plus 70 years).
In other words, copyright law should not change in the digital environment, and if it doesn't change, then fair dealing and fair use are just as applicable there. Here's the press release. This sentence says it all: "Licenses providing access to digital material should not undermine longstanding limitations and exceptions such as ‘fair dealing.'" And here's another angle to the story.
I am so thrilled, I can't even express myself."
I said at the time of her original essay that she was probably being a little harsh on the good folks at the British Library, since their director, Clive Field, had already publicly expressed his concerns about drm potentially causing digital lockdown of libaries; and though this is an excellent initiative from them it won't make the issues surrounding the adoption of the Microsoft drm at the Library go away. The reality of the day to day deployment and managing of complex information systems tends to be far removed from well intended high level policies and it is important that things are right at the operational level as well as the policy level. The very nature of the institution, however, means that it is crammed full of dedicated people who will, hopefully, tip the balance in terms of killing off their operational drm strictures in the longer term.
Monday, September 25, 2006
Simulating terrorism
There's an interesting article in this month's Spectrum on using computer simulations to help model or predict terrorist behaviour.
"Different forms of the software are aimed at military officials, who are already using such programs to train officers and troops, and at intelligence analysts, who are finding that the shadowy, shifting organizations they must study are so complex and unstable that keeping track of all the variables without computer help is increasingly unrealistic. The hope is that one day an intelligence analyst sitting at a desk thousands of miles from Jakarta or Jalalabad will be able to make preternaturally good guesses about who is likely to commit violent acts, and to advise policy-makers on specific ways to prevent an attack...
"Different forms of the software are aimed at military officials, who are already using such programs to train officers and troops, and at intelligence analysts, who are finding that the shadowy, shifting organizations they must study are so complex and unstable that keeping track of all the variables without computer help is increasingly unrealistic. The hope is that one day an intelligence analyst sitting at a desk thousands of miles from Jakarta or Jalalabad will be able to make preternaturally good guesses about who is likely to commit violent acts, and to advise policy-makers on specific ways to prevent an attack...
Such work, concentrated in the United States and sustained by tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in funding by various intelligence organizations, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, points to a new era in training and intelligence analysis. The experts developing these systems are reticent about exactly how their programs are being used. But outside observers say it is a good bet that software designed to identify the critical people in a terrorist organization will be used—if it hasn’t been already—to draw up lists that prioritize which people should be killed or captured so as to do maximum damage to the organization.
That worries some experts, who caution that even when the models are fed by the best available intelligence, they should never be trusted to determine, by themselves, whether someone should live or die. “A simulation is by its nature speculative, and you don’t go out and kill people based on speculation,” says Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists, in Washington, D.C...
50 percent of U.S. analysts have less than five years’ experience, according to some estimates. And yet despite all the turnover, Johnston noted a lingering tendency among analysts to look for information to confirm the prevailing hypothesis in their groups or sections rather than challenge it and risk alienating colleagues and superiors. Indeed, it is considered taboo to change “the corporate product line”: if the president or his national security team receives an official opinion from an intelligence agency and that agency later radically revises it, trust, status, and ultimately funding are jeopardized."
e-literate
Martin points to a terrific education technology blog by Michael Feldstein, called e-Literate.
Feldstein seems to have written quite extensively on the Blackboard patent and has provided an excellent 'english translation' of the legalese in the patent claims. He mentions a promising bill making its way through Congress at the moment, that I wasn't aware of, called the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust (DO IT) Act.
"There is a bill in committee in both houses of the U.S. Congress right now. It’s called the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust (DO IT) Act. I just published an article with the details, but the gist is that it would take the estimated $20 billion in proceeds from the impending sale of analog television spectrum and put it into a trust for developing digital content and technologies for education. The annual interest on the trust is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion. That’s one billion dollars. Every year. Going toward creating educational content and educational technology.
As Martin is fond of saying, the places where technology compliments or parallels what has gone before are interesting but even more interesting are the gaps - the places where our metaphors for the technology don't quite work. Where are the differences, the disontinuities, the latent ambiguities, the puzzles and opportunities and how can we exploit them for positive ends in the educational context.
Feldstein seems to have written quite extensively on the Blackboard patent and has provided an excellent 'english translation' of the legalese in the patent claims. He mentions a promising bill making its way through Congress at the moment, that I wasn't aware of, called the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust (DO IT) Act.
"There is a bill in committee in both houses of the U.S. Congress right now. It’s called the Digital Opportunity Investment Trust (DO IT) Act. I just published an article with the details, but the gist is that it would take the estimated $20 billion in proceeds from the impending sale of analog television spectrum and put it into a trust for developing digital content and technologies for education. The annual interest on the trust is estimated to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion. That’s one billion dollars. Every year. Going toward creating educational content and educational technology.
But it gets better. The R&D roadmap for the Trust, developed by the Federation of American Scientists (an organization composed mostly of Nobel laureates), hits all of the hard stuff that we may never get right without proper funding--intelligent tutoring systems, immersive simulation authoring tools that are usable by faculty, robust integration standards--you name it.
Best of all, any technology funded by the grant is released to the public domain by default. (The Trust’s board can approve exceptions if necessary, but the policy is to release the software to the general public unless there is a strongly compelling reason to do otherwise.) Think of a billion dollars a year of prior art being created and documented as a wall against EduPatents. For that matter, think of a billion dollars a year of new digital content and teaching tools. This could fundamentally change the landscape for e-Learning."
Sounds amazing, if only it gets through the Congressional legislative minefield unscathed and then the money can be used with sufficient intelligence, energy and creativity. So far we've been doing a fair job, sometimes, in getting the technologies to compliment what we already do in education. But we haven't really even scratched the surface of the things the technology could help us do better, or tapped into the new environments these technologies are creating or could create if we applied sufficient imagination, even just to harness some the emergencing properties of these technological systems.As Martin is fond of saying, the places where technology compliments or parallels what has gone before are interesting but even more interesting are the gaps - the places where our metaphors for the technology don't quite work. Where are the differences, the disontinuities, the latent ambiguities, the puzzles and opportunities and how can we exploit them for positive ends in the educational context.
Felten refutes Diebold response to evoting report
Ed Felten refutes the Diebold response to his e-voting report with Ariel J. Feldman and J. Alex Halderman on the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine.
Recommended reading.
Recommended reading.
Shame and torture
Michael Froomkin is "thoroughly depressed by recent events to post anything about the capitulation of the power centers of the Senate to the administration's program of lawlessness, torture, with the undermining of one of the great success stories of international legality thrown in for garnish.
Fortunately, others are made of sterner stuff.
Marty Lederman, The Torture ChorusMarty Lederman, Senators Snatch Defeat From Jaws of Victory: U.S. to be First Nation to Authorize Violations of Geneva
Marty Lederman, Three of the Most Significant Problems with the "Compromise"
Stanford Levinson, Legal Realism 101 and the McCain Capitulation
The Carpetbagger Report, McCain, Warner, and Graham cut and ran"
Radically more of the same
ARCH yet again are right on the money when it comes to the government's latest 'radical education reforms.'
"We hear often enough about a child’s ‘right to education’ (Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in case you’re interested in the technicalities) but there’s a stunning silence on its Siamese twin, Article 29, that defines exactly what education should be about, as in:
‘States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to (a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.'
What will it take for this - or any other - Government to rip out our dismal education system and replace it with something fit for purpose? Rather than contemplating yet more ways of controlling the children who fall of the conveyor-belt, a good start would be to ask them what needs to be done – now that really would be radical."
Absolutely. We could transform the entire country for the better within the space of a generation if we got serious about the education system. Unfortunately we put a never ending succession of people in charge of the system, who can't see beyond the next headline or the need to make their mark with 'radical reforms,' in the maximum of two or three years they are likely to have in the post. The result is armies of dedicated and worn out teachers, so weighed down with ticking boxes and processing bits of paper so the latest secretary of state can proudly declare what a fantastic job that the government is doing, that those teachers have no time or space for children or teaching. Primary schools become government paper processing and child minding facilities and any learning that goes on is merely incidental to that main business. As for the secondary sector, well I leave it to people much better qualified than me to comment.
"We hear often enough about a child’s ‘right to education’ (Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, in case you’re interested in the technicalities) but there’s a stunning silence on its Siamese twin, Article 29, that defines exactly what education should be about, as in:
‘States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to (a) The development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential.'
What will it take for this - or any other - Government to rip out our dismal education system and replace it with something fit for purpose? Rather than contemplating yet more ways of controlling the children who fall of the conveyor-belt, a good start would be to ask them what needs to be done – now that really would be radical."
Absolutely. We could transform the entire country for the better within the space of a generation if we got serious about the education system. Unfortunately we put a never ending succession of people in charge of the system, who can't see beyond the next headline or the need to make their mark with 'radical reforms,' in the maximum of two or three years they are likely to have in the post. The result is armies of dedicated and worn out teachers, so weighed down with ticking boxes and processing bits of paper so the latest secretary of state can proudly declare what a fantastic job that the government is doing, that those teachers have no time or space for children or teaching. Primary schools become government paper processing and child minding facilities and any learning that goes on is merely incidental to that main business. As for the secondary sector, well I leave it to people much better qualified than me to comment.
A watering hole for patent trolls
Michael Perelman has been reading the NYT's article on a town in Texas, which appears to be the patent litigation capital of the US.
"What sets Marshall apart from its neighbors is a red-hot patent docket. Four years ago, 32 patent lawsuits were filed in the Federal Eastern District of Texas, which includes Tyler, Texarkana and Marshall. This year, an estimated 234 cases will be filed in the district, a majority of them in Marshall.
What’s behind the rush to file patent lawsuits here? A combination of quick trials and plaintiff-friendly juries, many lawyers say. Patent cases are heard faster in Marshall than in many other courts. And while only a small number of cases make it to trial — roughly 5 percent — patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 percent nationwide, according to LegalMetric, a company that tracks patent litigation.
Those odds are daunting enough to encourage many corporate defendants to settle before setting foot in Marshall. Add to that the fact that jurors here have a history of handing out Texas-sized verdicts to winners. In April, for instance, a Marshall jury returned a $73 million verdict against EchoStar Communications for infringing the patents of TiVo."
"What sets Marshall apart from its neighbors is a red-hot patent docket. Four years ago, 32 patent lawsuits were filed in the Federal Eastern District of Texas, which includes Tyler, Texarkana and Marshall. This year, an estimated 234 cases will be filed in the district, a majority of them in Marshall.
What’s behind the rush to file patent lawsuits here? A combination of quick trials and plaintiff-friendly juries, many lawyers say. Patent cases are heard faster in Marshall than in many other courts. And while only a small number of cases make it to trial — roughly 5 percent — patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 percent nationwide, according to LegalMetric, a company that tracks patent litigation.
Those odds are daunting enough to encourage many corporate defendants to settle before setting foot in Marshall. Add to that the fact that jurors here have a history of handing out Texas-sized verdicts to winners. In April, for instance, a Marshall jury returned a $73 million verdict against EchoStar Communications for infringing the patents of TiVo."
Friday, September 22, 2006
Home Office criticised by select committee report
Jerry Fishenden of Microsoft points to an interesting parliamentary report by the Select Committee on European Union, which catigates the Home Office for pressing forward with measures with other G6 ministers of interior, to undermine data protection principles. They also complain that there has been a serious lack of transparency about the whole enterprise and accuse the Home Office of effectively misleading parliament on the issue.
"We do not understand why the former Home Secretary should have apparently agreed with other G6 ministers to press forward with the "availability" principle and disregard data protection issues. This is contrary to the decision of the Member States in the Hague Programme, contrary to the advice of independent data protection authorities, inconsistent with what the Home Office Ministers had told us, and against the views of the Finnish Presidency. The exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities is important, but not so important that civil rights can be eroded."
This Select committee always gets plenty of media attention when criticising the EU but not much, it seems, when drawing attention to the erosion of abstract principles like data protection.
"We do not understand why the former Home Secretary should have apparently agreed with other G6 ministers to press forward with the "availability" principle and disregard data protection issues. This is contrary to the decision of the Member States in the Hague Programme, contrary to the advice of independent data protection authorities, inconsistent with what the Home Office Ministers had told us, and against the views of the Finnish Presidency. The exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities is important, but not so important that civil rights can be eroded."
This Select committee always gets plenty of media attention when criticising the EU but not much, it seems, when drawing attention to the erosion of abstract principles like data protection.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Tony Blair and the end of privacy
Microsoft's open specification promise
From Kim Cameron:
"Microsoft announced a new initiative that I hope goes a long way towards making life easier for all of us working together on identity cross-industry.
It’s called the Open Specification Promise (OSP). The goal was to find the simplest, clearest way of assuring that the broadest possible audience of developers could implement specifications without worrying about intellectual property issues - in other words a simplified method of sharing “technical assets”. It’s still a legal document, although a very simple one"
This is an important move on the identity architecture front. Kim subsequently points to the range of reactions to the move on his blog.
"Microsoft announced a new initiative that I hope goes a long way towards making life easier for all of us working together on identity cross-industry.
It’s called the Open Specification Promise (OSP). The goal was to find the simplest, clearest way of assuring that the broadest possible audience of developers could implement specifications without worrying about intellectual property issues - in other words a simplified method of sharing “technical assets”. It’s still a legal document, although a very simple one"
This is an important move on the identity architecture front. Kim subsequently points to the range of reactions to the move on his blog.
Eben Moglen's dotCommujnist manifesto
I had reason to re-visit Eben Moglen's dotCommunist manifesto today. Whatever you might think about the Free Software Foundation's ideals, Moglen always makes me stop and think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)