Straight from the Source: Perspectives from the African Open Source Movement. Highly recommended. If you can't manage the full 17 pages, at least read the summary. Extract -
"For a software developer working in Africa, Philip Mbogo's problem is as basic as it gets: "I don't have a computer," he said. "I have to go for unpaid work in order just to get on a computer." Internet access is also an expensive rarity, so he counts himself fortunate to work as an intern at an Internet service provider where he takes as much advantage of the bandwidth as he can. "Anything I can get I download. I even got [a Linux distribution called] Debian, which takes two days [to download]."
African software developers face many obstacles as they struggle to work in this field. But these "coders", as a group, form a community marked less by their frustration and isolation than by their perseverance and resolve. This theme dominated AfricaSource, a workshop held in Namibia in March 2004 and organised by the Tactical Technology Collective, AllAfrica Foundation and SchoolNet Namibia. The meeting in the small town of Okahandja of 40 software developers from 25 countries was for many the first chance to collaborate and compare notes.
Lack of access to the means and tools of production is the issue African programmers most commonly identify as the greatest barrier to success in their work. But at this event, coders got a chance to share the innovative ways they work around the problem. "We buy computer parts bit by bit. In the space of three or four months we have a computer," says Ayeni Samuel Olaoluwa, a web developer from Nigeria, who saves up to 50% this way. Another method he has devised is keeping his freelance clients' work on computers he uses as part of his day job. "I am able to hide stuff on the server, but when I leave the company I'm in trouble."
The prohibitive costs of bandwidth and hardware are an obstruction most programmers face, but it affects coders most seriously at the time they are preparing to enter the job market. Without the opportunity to earn salaries that would help them afford equipment of their own, ambitious market entrants eager for work face the prospect of successive, often unpaid, internships just to prove their skills.
This predicament is widespread across Africa, says Ghanaian Guido Sohne, "There are not enough projects available to work on to employ the available talent…. In most African countries IT is not part of the economic production process. It's actually more expensive to computerise your accounting system than to hire more people to do it manually." So when programmers do find jobs, a large percentage tend to find themselves ushered into system administration and technical roles, where they are overworked and their skills are underutilised."
I complain that my office desktop computer crashes half a doxen times a day. I at least have the access and can always revert to the laptop when the inevitable Micrsoft blue screen of death makes its regular appearance.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Ed Felten points to an op ed piece in CSO magazine by Simson Garfinkel that demonstrates, yet again, how careless we are in our use of computers.
"A FEW YEARS AGO, when
I was in Silicon Valley with
nothing to do, I stopped by
one of the valley's famed
stores that sell used and
"recycled" computers...
...But the real treasure trove that day wasn't on the store's display shelves; it was in the
warehouse. The cavernous space out back had several shelves stacked high with old hard
drives, each $5, "as is and untested," according to the sign...
...I bought 20 of them.
I took the drives home and started my own forensic analysis. Several of the drives had
source code from high-tech companies. One drive had a confidential memorandum
describing a biotech project; another had internal spreadsheets belonging to an
international shipping company.
Since then, I have repeatedly indulged my habit for procuring and then analyzing
secondhand hard drives. I bought recycled drives in Bellevue, Wash., that had internal
Microsoft e-mail (somebody who was working from home, apparently). Drives that I
found at an MIT swap meet had financial information on them from a Boston-area
investment firm. Last summer, I started buying drives en masse on eBay.
In all, I bought and analyzed the content of more than 150 drives with the help of Abhi
Shelat, another graduate student at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science. We found
that between one-third and one-half of the drives still had significant amounts of
confidential data, even though many had been through a Format or FDisk operation. On
another third, someone had deleted the document files but left the applications behind. It
was a simple matter to undelete the data files and retrieve their secrets as well.
In fact, only 10 percent of the drives I purchased had been properly sanitized.
Much of the data we found was truly shocking. One of the drives once lived in an ATM. It
contained a year's worth of financial transactions—including account numbers and
withdrawal amounts—from a organization that had a legal requirement to not divulge such
information. Two other drives contained more than 5,000 credit card numbers—it looked
as if one had been inside a cash register. Another had e-mail and personal financial
records of a 45-year-old fellow in Georgia. The man is divorced, paying child support and
dating a woman he met in Savannah. And, oh yeah, he's really into pornography...
...Perhaps the saddest observation in our story is that erasing information from hard drives is
not difficult—with a little bit of Web searching, we found more than 50 programs that
purport to clean your hard drive so that the information on it cannot be recovered using
even the most advanced technical means...
...One key reason for today's poor disk sanitization practices is that it's very difficult to tell
the difference between a disk that has been properly sanitized and one that's simply been
reformatted...
...Another reason, we suspect, is that most people don't appreciate
the risk—the used-computer market is literally awash with
personal information from businesses and individuals, yet there
are relatively few cases of that information being used for
nefarious purposes."
ON the latter, it's only a matter of time. Garfinkel concludes:
"In the end, preventive technology is a better solution to the sanitization problem. If you use an encrypted file system, you can sanitize a disk simply by erasing the key. I'd like to see that sort of technology built in to hard drives. Or better, perhaps someday soon, all disk drives will come with a self-destruct feature—just like Star Trek's Enterprise did!"
"A FEW YEARS AGO, when
I was in Silicon Valley with
nothing to do, I stopped by
one of the valley's famed
stores that sell used and
"recycled" computers...
...But the real treasure trove that day wasn't on the store's display shelves; it was in the
warehouse. The cavernous space out back had several shelves stacked high with old hard
drives, each $5, "as is and untested," according to the sign...
...I bought 20 of them.
I took the drives home and started my own forensic analysis. Several of the drives had
source code from high-tech companies. One drive had a confidential memorandum
describing a biotech project; another had internal spreadsheets belonging to an
international shipping company.
Since then, I have repeatedly indulged my habit for procuring and then analyzing
secondhand hard drives. I bought recycled drives in Bellevue, Wash., that had internal
Microsoft e-mail (somebody who was working from home, apparently). Drives that I
found at an MIT swap meet had financial information on them from a Boston-area
investment firm. Last summer, I started buying drives en masse on eBay.
In all, I bought and analyzed the content of more than 150 drives with the help of Abhi
Shelat, another graduate student at MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science. We found
that between one-third and one-half of the drives still had significant amounts of
confidential data, even though many had been through a Format or FDisk operation. On
another third, someone had deleted the document files but left the applications behind. It
was a simple matter to undelete the data files and retrieve their secrets as well.
In fact, only 10 percent of the drives I purchased had been properly sanitized.
Much of the data we found was truly shocking. One of the drives once lived in an ATM. It
contained a year's worth of financial transactions—including account numbers and
withdrawal amounts—from a organization that had a legal requirement to not divulge such
information. Two other drives contained more than 5,000 credit card numbers—it looked
as if one had been inside a cash register. Another had e-mail and personal financial
records of a 45-year-old fellow in Georgia. The man is divorced, paying child support and
dating a woman he met in Savannah. And, oh yeah, he's really into pornography...
...Perhaps the saddest observation in our story is that erasing information from hard drives is
not difficult—with a little bit of Web searching, we found more than 50 programs that
purport to clean your hard drive so that the information on it cannot be recovered using
even the most advanced technical means...
...One key reason for today's poor disk sanitization practices is that it's very difficult to tell
the difference between a disk that has been properly sanitized and one that's simply been
reformatted...
...Another reason, we suspect, is that most people don't appreciate
the risk—the used-computer market is literally awash with
personal information from businesses and individuals, yet there
are relatively few cases of that information being used for
nefarious purposes."
ON the latter, it's only a matter of time. Garfinkel concludes:
"In the end, preventive technology is a better solution to the sanitization problem. If you use an encrypted file system, you can sanitize a disk simply by erasing the key. I'd like to see that sort of technology built in to hard drives. Or better, perhaps someday soon, all disk drives will come with a self-destruct feature—just like Star Trek's Enterprise did!"
Avi Rubin has had recent first hand experience of being on the receiving end of a false positive experience at an airport in California. The equipment detected non eixistent explosives in his belongings.
Prof Rubin also points to a slighly longer version of the hilarious clip from The Daily Show at Comedy Central on electronic voting.
Prof Rubin also points to a slighly longer version of the hilarious clip from The Daily Show at Comedy Central on electronic voting.
I always seem to come away from reading Noam Chomsky's ideas with deep concerns about the world we live in and that which our children are inheriting. This essay in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 tragedies, invokes just those feelings. The mere mention of Chomsky causes some people to foam at the mouth, but even when I can't accept his theses, reading them is enlightening if also anxiety and depression inducing!
Donna is pleased that the antidote to the DMCA is getting a hearing on Capitol Hill.
Fair Use Gets Fair Play on Capitol Hill
This Wednesday, May 12th, marks the first time since the DMCA was enacted in 1998 that Congress will hold hearings on
legislation to reform it.
The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, or DMCRA, has three important goals:
#1: Warning: You're About to Pay Full Price for a Hobbled CD
The DMCRA would require labels on copy-protected "CDs," letting us know that we can't actually use what we've purchased
except under limited circumstances. That's right -- you get advance warning that you're paying the same price for less
functionality.
#2: You Get to Reclaim Fair Uses of Digital Media That You Already Have in Analog Media
The DMC_R_A would put the Rights back in the DMCA. The bill amends the DMCA to allow you to circumvent copyright
controls on digital media for legitimate purposes -- for example, to make the fair uses that copyright law ordinarily and
traditionally allows.
Among other things, this would mean that:
a.) when most scholarly communication, publishing, instruction etc., takes place using digital media/online, our ability to share
knowledge and learn from one another won't be a distant and fast-fading memory;
b.) when researchers want to "tinker" to advance our scientific knowledge, they won't face a significant barrier -- like the
repeated threat of litigation; and
c.) when librarians seek to preserve our history in digital media, they won't have to wait three years at a time to beg the
Copyright Office for the narrowly defined technical ability to do so.
#3: These Will Be Real, Not Phantom/Illusory Fair Use Rights
The DMCRA would affirmatively allow the creation/distribution of devices that circumvent copyright controls, when the devices
have substantial non-infringing uses. That means inventors will be able to invent the next VCR or TiVo without asking
Hollywood's permission first. And if a researcher has created a circumvention tool for the purposes of researching/testing
web-filtering mechanisms, the researcher won't be limited to describing the controversial results. He or she could share the tool
with the scholarly community.
Fair Use Gets Fair Play on Capitol Hill
This Wednesday, May 12th, marks the first time since the DMCA was enacted in 1998 that Congress will hold hearings on
legislation to reform it.
The Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, or DMCRA, has three important goals:
#1: Warning: You're About to Pay Full Price for a Hobbled CD
The DMCRA would require labels on copy-protected "CDs," letting us know that we can't actually use what we've purchased
except under limited circumstances. That's right -- you get advance warning that you're paying the same price for less
functionality.
#2: You Get to Reclaim Fair Uses of Digital Media That You Already Have in Analog Media
The DMC_R_A would put the Rights back in the DMCA. The bill amends the DMCA to allow you to circumvent copyright
controls on digital media for legitimate purposes -- for example, to make the fair uses that copyright law ordinarily and
traditionally allows.
Among other things, this would mean that:
a.) when most scholarly communication, publishing, instruction etc., takes place using digital media/online, our ability to share
knowledge and learn from one another won't be a distant and fast-fading memory;
b.) when researchers want to "tinker" to advance our scientific knowledge, they won't face a significant barrier -- like the
repeated threat of litigation; and
c.) when librarians seek to preserve our history in digital media, they won't have to wait three years at a time to beg the
Copyright Office for the narrowly defined technical ability to do so.
#3: These Will Be Real, Not Phantom/Illusory Fair Use Rights
The DMCRA would affirmatively allow the creation/distribution of devices that circumvent copyright controls, when the devices
have substantial non-infringing uses. That means inventors will be able to invent the next VCR or TiVo without asking
Hollywood's permission first. And if a researcher has created a circumvention tool for the purposes of researching/testing
web-filtering mechanisms, the researcher won't be limited to describing the controversial results. He or she could share the tool
with the scholarly community.
Waldon O'Dell, Diebold's CEO, today admits in the NYT that he made a "huge mistake" last year in declaring he wanted to deliver the election for George Bush. He's getting out of politics and planning to stay out as long as Diebold are in the voting machine business. Good for him.
The Washington Post, last week, had a good article on the electronic voting shenanigans in the US. There was nothing new in it but lots of useful links to related stories.
There are lots of very experienced election registrars genuinely supporting electronic voting and suggesting there has been too much focus on the tecnology and not enough on the overall election process, which has other built in safeguards, not least of which are vast numbers of dedicated election officials of impeccable integrity. Whilst I understand that point of view and the need to 'get the job done', whilst critics complain about 'hypothetical scenarios that have never happened', there have been significant failures with these machines. Officials who have not experienced such failures believe that they will not happen on their watch. But the security of the system is only as good as the weakest link and at the moment the weakest link is the technology, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Folk like Avi Rubin and David Gill really do understand the technology. With people of that calibre saying it neither implements security that is possible nor even implement security safeguards that are easy, we should be taking serious notice. Deploying technology in such a mission critical way fundamentally requires an understanding of that technology.
Whilst I have every sympathy with election officials, I have none at all for those like the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA - the trade association representing amongst others, surprise suprise, the electronic voting machine vendors) spouting complete nonsense like "Electronic voting systems work, and work well. Our recent survey shows that over two thirds of Americans believe that electronic voting is a secure, reliable way to conduct elections." This reminds me of the line from one of my favorite BBC TV shows of all time, Yes Prime Minister where Sir Humphrey Appleby is persuading the Prime Minister that he should invest in Trident: "It's the biggest and the best and the British people must have the best." Also the following sequence where Sir Humphrey and Bernard are discussing opinion polls:
Bernard: "He thinks..he thinks it's a vote winner."
Sir Humphrey (Sir H).: "Ah, that's more serious. What makes him think that?"
Bernard: "Well the party have had an opinion poll done. It seems all the voters are in favour of bringing back national service."
Sir H.: "Well have another opinion poll done showing the voters are against bringing back national service."
Bernard: "They can't be for it and against it."
Sir H. : "Oh of course they can, Bernard. Have you ever been surveyed?"
Bernard : "Yes. Well not me actually, my house. Oh I see what you mean."
Sir H.: "Well Bernard you know what happens. Nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good
impression. You don't want to look a fool, do you?"
Bernard: "No."
Sir H.: "No. So she starts asking you some questions. Mr. Wooley, are you worried about the number of young people without
jobs?"
B: "Yes"
Sir H.: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard: "Yes"
Sir H. "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our comprehensive schools?"
Bernard: "Yes"
Sir H.: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H.: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H: "Would you be in favour of re-introducing national service?"
Bernard: "Y… oh ..well I suppose I might be."
Sir H.: "Yes or no?"
Bernard: "Yes"
Sir H. : "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you've told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five
questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir H.: Well no not the reputable ones no but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite
result."
Bernard: "How?"
Sir H.: "Mr Wooley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard: "Yes"
Sir H. : "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H. : "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H. : "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H.: "Would you oppose the re-introduction of national service?"
Bernard : "Yes."
Sir H. : "There you are you see, Bernard, the perfect balanced sample. So we just commission our own survey for the ministry
of defence. See to it Bernard."
There are lots of very experienced election registrars genuinely supporting electronic voting and suggesting there has been too much focus on the tecnology and not enough on the overall election process, which has other built in safeguards, not least of which are vast numbers of dedicated election officials of impeccable integrity. Whilst I understand that point of view and the need to 'get the job done', whilst critics complain about 'hypothetical scenarios that have never happened', there have been significant failures with these machines. Officials who have not experienced such failures believe that they will not happen on their watch. But the security of the system is only as good as the weakest link and at the moment the weakest link is the technology, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.
Folk like Avi Rubin and David Gill really do understand the technology. With people of that calibre saying it neither implements security that is possible nor even implement security safeguards that are easy, we should be taking serious notice. Deploying technology in such a mission critical way fundamentally requires an understanding of that technology.
Whilst I have every sympathy with election officials, I have none at all for those like the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA - the trade association representing amongst others, surprise suprise, the electronic voting machine vendors) spouting complete nonsense like "Electronic voting systems work, and work well. Our recent survey shows that over two thirds of Americans believe that electronic voting is a secure, reliable way to conduct elections." This reminds me of the line from one of my favorite BBC TV shows of all time, Yes Prime Minister where Sir Humphrey Appleby is persuading the Prime Minister that he should invest in Trident: "It's the biggest and the best and the British people must have the best." Also the following sequence where Sir Humphrey and Bernard are discussing opinion polls:
Bernard: "He thinks..he thinks it's a vote winner."
Sir Humphrey (Sir H).: "Ah, that's more serious. What makes him think that?"
Bernard: "Well the party have had an opinion poll done. It seems all the voters are in favour of bringing back national service."
Sir H.: "Well have another opinion poll done showing the voters are against bringing back national service."
Bernard: "They can't be for it and against it."
Sir H. : "Oh of course they can, Bernard. Have you ever been surveyed?"
Bernard : "Yes. Well not me actually, my house. Oh I see what you mean."
Sir H.: "Well Bernard you know what happens. Nice young lady comes up to you. Obviously you want to create a good
impression. You don't want to look a fool, do you?"
Bernard: "No."
Sir H.: "No. So she starts asking you some questions. Mr. Wooley, are you worried about the number of young people without
jobs?"
B: "Yes"
Sir H.: "Are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
Bernard: "Yes"
Sir H. "Do you think there is a lack of discipline in our comprehensive schools?"
Bernard: "Yes"
Sir H.: "Do you think young people welcome some authority and leadership in their lives?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H.: "Do you think they respond to a challenge?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H: "Would you be in favour of re-introducing national service?"
Bernard: "Y… oh ..well I suppose I might be."
Sir H.: "Yes or no?"
Bernard: "Yes"
Sir H. : "Of course you would, Bernard. After all you've told you can't say no to that. So they don't mention the first five
questions and they publish the last one."
Bernard: "Is that really what they do?"
Sir H.: Well no not the reputable ones no but there aren't many of those. So alternatively the young lady can get the opposite
result."
Bernard: "How?"
Sir H.: "Mr Wooley, are you worried about the danger of war?"
Bernard: "Yes"
Sir H. : "Are you worried about the growth of armaments?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H. : "Do you think there is a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H. : "Do you think it is wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
Bernard: "Yes."
Sir H.: "Would you oppose the re-introduction of national service?"
Bernard : "Yes."
Sir H. : "There you are you see, Bernard, the perfect balanced sample. So we just commission our own survey for the ministry
of defence. See to it Bernard."
The Boston Globe has picked up the story of the arrest of Japanese professor, Isamu Kaneko, over file sharing software Winny.
Tuesday, May 11, 2004
John Lettice is on the ID card case again at the Register, this time pointing out that Department for Homeland Security and a biometric company, Identix, which is is also supplying equipment for the UK Passport Service's ID card pilot, are on the receiving end of a lawsuit in the US. Two men are suing for slander and product liability as the Identix system helped to give them other people's criminal records.
One of the men actually got jailed for being a convicted felon carrying a gun, despite the fact that the crime on his record had been perpetrated by someone else who even had a completely different name, Kellogg as opposed to Benson.
How could that happen? Especially when UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett, seems to believe these seems are "impossible" to fool. It seems Benson had been fingerprinted for a traffic violation. Kellogg convicted of multiple crimes. But the admin number on their respective electronic fingerprint cards was accidentally duplicated. And when the records were entered on the criminal justice database, Benson got credited with Kellogg's crimes.
As Lettice concludes:
"For the rest of us, the real issue is how fallibility in software and human input can produce
extremely serious errors in systems which are intended to provide virtually infallible
identification. There is here no dispute that Benson's and Kellogg's biometric records are
entirely different (Benson has only nine fingertips, for starters), but the processes operated
in such a way that Benson's record got the convictions. These spread from Oregon to
California, and Benson's attorney claims that he is still recorded by the FBI as having
been arrested as a felon in possession of a firearm.
Organisations deploying such systems should of course be extremely concerned that they
are not subject to such errors. Aside from the impact on the victims, the creation of false
records will damage the integrity of the database they're used in initially, and the sharing of
this data will result in the corruption spreading into other systems. The further it gets, the
harder it will be to undo the damage. But the more sure the designers are that they've
ruled out problems like this, the harder it will be to have errors corrected. If it's
impossible, then the people complaining have got to be mad, right? The issue of how you
deal with the data is actually far more important than getting the technology to produce a
"unique" biometric."
One of the men actually got jailed for being a convicted felon carrying a gun, despite the fact that the crime on his record had been perpetrated by someone else who even had a completely different name, Kellogg as opposed to Benson.
How could that happen? Especially when UK Home Secretary, David Blunkett, seems to believe these seems are "impossible" to fool. It seems Benson had been fingerprinted for a traffic violation. Kellogg convicted of multiple crimes. But the admin number on their respective electronic fingerprint cards was accidentally duplicated. And when the records were entered on the criminal justice database, Benson got credited with Kellogg's crimes.
As Lettice concludes:
"For the rest of us, the real issue is how fallibility in software and human input can produce
extremely serious errors in systems which are intended to provide virtually infallible
identification. There is here no dispute that Benson's and Kellogg's biometric records are
entirely different (Benson has only nine fingertips, for starters), but the processes operated
in such a way that Benson's record got the convictions. These spread from Oregon to
California, and Benson's attorney claims that he is still recorded by the FBI as having
been arrested as a felon in possession of a firearm.
Organisations deploying such systems should of course be extremely concerned that they
are not subject to such errors. Aside from the impact on the victims, the creation of false
records will damage the integrity of the database they're used in initially, and the sharing of
this data will result in the corruption spreading into other systems. The further it gets, the
harder it will be to undo the damage. But the more sure the designers are that they've
ruled out problems like this, the harder it will be to have errors corrected. If it's
impossible, then the people complaining have got to be mad, right? The issue of how you
deal with the data is actually far more important than getting the technology to produce a
"unique" biometric."
Jonathan Wallace is fretting about president Bush again:
"Harry Truman understood that authority and responsibility are one, that they must lie in the same place. He put a sign on his desk that said, "The buck stops here." ...
...George Bush does not understand. It is impossible to determine where, if anywhere, in this administration the buck actually stops. The President too often seems to be the child of his vice president, Dick Cheney. The fact that they will be appearing together before the 9/11 Commission is not confidence inspiring. It is almost certainly planned this way so that Cheney can interrupt the president if he starts to blither...
...John later asks the president what his biggest mistake has been since September 11. "In the last campaign....you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa."
And the President, God help us, replies:
Hmmm. I wish you'd given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it....I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.
Which is why they won't send him before the experts on the 9/11 Commission without Dick Cheney there to interrupt and talk over him whenever necessary.
While we are all sweating it out, waiting for something to pop into the president's head, ask yourself the very serious question: where does the buck stop in this administration?"
"Harry Truman understood that authority and responsibility are one, that they must lie in the same place. He put a sign on his desk that said, "The buck stops here." ...
...George Bush does not understand. It is impossible to determine where, if anywhere, in this administration the buck actually stops. The President too often seems to be the child of his vice president, Dick Cheney. The fact that they will be appearing together before the 9/11 Commission is not confidence inspiring. It is almost certainly planned this way so that Cheney can interrupt the president if he starts to blither...
...John later asks the president what his biggest mistake has been since September 11. "In the last campaign....you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa."
And the President, God help us, replies:
Hmmm. I wish you'd given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it....I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet.
Which is why they won't send him before the experts on the 9/11 Commission without Dick Cheney there to interrupt and talk over him whenever necessary.
While we are all sweating it out, waiting for something to pop into the president's head, ask yourself the very serious question: where does the buck stop in this administration?"
Out-Law reports on the UK government's proposals for a national ID card: ID Card Database emerges from the shadows
This piece nicely reminds us that in its original consultation exercise on what David Blunkett was then calling an "entitlement card" the government said “it is most unlikely that entitlement information relating to specific services would be held on the central register” which, of course, is the complete opposite of what it says in the draft bill on the subject published last week.
Chris Pounder of Masons (who also publish Out-Law) says:
“The Government’s proposals, if enacted in their current form,
could amount to the lawful, secret, unrecorded access by the
police and security services to centralised details which could,
over time, list all the important public and private services used
by each card-holder during his or her life-time”.
“This raises very serious and new privacy concerns about the
central registry database, as the two Commissioners charged with
protecting privacy in the ID Card scheme could be in the dark
about the volume and nature of the access requests to the central
registry database by the security service and police."
A society where we can map anyone in detail but not monitor everyone in detail. Hmmm, now where have I heard that one before?
This piece nicely reminds us that in its original consultation exercise on what David Blunkett was then calling an "entitlement card" the government said “it is most unlikely that entitlement information relating to specific services would be held on the central register” which, of course, is the complete opposite of what it says in the draft bill on the subject published last week.
Chris Pounder of Masons (who also publish Out-Law) says:
“The Government’s proposals, if enacted in their current form,
could amount to the lawful, secret, unrecorded access by the
police and security services to centralised details which could,
over time, list all the important public and private services used
by each card-holder during his or her life-time”.
“This raises very serious and new privacy concerns about the
central registry database, as the two Commissioners charged with
protecting privacy in the ID Card scheme could be in the dark
about the volume and nature of the access requests to the central
registry database by the security service and police."
A society where we can map anyone in detail but not monitor everyone in detail. Hmmm, now where have I heard that one before?
Ian Brown at FIPR has pointed me at a piece by Toby Young in the Times where he considers the downside of recording the minutiae of life, which is now (naturally) facilitated by technology.
THE first law of technology is: anything personal
invariably becomes public. So it will be with the
SenseCam, a miniature camera that can record a
person’s entire day and store it in a computerised
diary. Developed by Microsoft’s British engineers,
the SenseCam will allow us to keep our entire lives
on disk. What a treasure trove of memories!
Alternatively, what a catalogue of indiscretions for
others to peruse! "
"It is only a matter of time, probably after some
horrible and shocking event, before Parliament
sets up a Department of Personal Records
requiring citizens to download their weekly
behaviour on to a national database. Strictly in the
interests of national security, of course."
"There is a second law of technology: it goes wrong"
He should have added that the third law of technology is that we use it unthinkingly and carelessly leading to adverse emergent properties...
I had a bad day in the office yesterday, when I was supposed to be on study leave, sorting out some difficulties with the new electronic computer marked assignment for my Internet law course. (Difficulties created by a completely avoidable accumulation of minor errors which the system then made difficult to correct and leading to the perception of a right-and-left-hands communications breakdown).
THE first law of technology is: anything personal
invariably becomes public. So it will be with the
SenseCam, a miniature camera that can record a
person’s entire day and store it in a computerised
diary. Developed by Microsoft’s British engineers,
the SenseCam will allow us to keep our entire lives
on disk. What a treasure trove of memories!
Alternatively, what a catalogue of indiscretions for
others to peruse! "
"It is only a matter of time, probably after some
horrible and shocking event, before Parliament
sets up a Department of Personal Records
requiring citizens to download their weekly
behaviour on to a national database. Strictly in the
interests of national security, of course."
"There is a second law of technology: it goes wrong"
He should have added that the third law of technology is that we use it unthinkingly and carelessly leading to adverse emergent properties...
I had a bad day in the office yesterday, when I was supposed to be on study leave, sorting out some difficulties with the new electronic computer marked assignment for my Internet law course. (Difficulties created by a completely avoidable accumulation of minor errors which the system then made difficult to correct and leading to the perception of a right-and-left-hands communications breakdown).
Monday, May 10, 2004
More academics as criminals news from Slashdot. An assistant professor of computer science at the University of Tokyo has been arrested for encouraging copyright infringement. He created P2P software 'Winny' based on Freenet, which unfortunately for him it seems, became rather popular.
I wonder how much this arrest might be related to some sensitive Japanese police information getting distributed round the Net via Winny? Or whether this may have been a minor contributory factor in the decision to make the arrest? I'm sure most of us would be annoyed if sensitive information from our systems got p2p'd in a widespread fashion.
This might be an interesting case to watch, especially since the Japanese have a more relaxed attitude to copyright infringement, at least when it comes to comics. That's, no doubt, an unfair generalisation, as comics are a pretty specific area but then, as an old college friend of mine used to delight in pointing out, generalisations are generally wrong.
I wonder how much this arrest might be related to some sensitive Japanese police information getting distributed round the Net via Winny? Or whether this may have been a minor contributory factor in the decision to make the arrest? I'm sure most of us would be annoyed if sensitive information from our systems got p2p'd in a widespread fashion.
This might be an interesting case to watch, especially since the Japanese have a more relaxed attitude to copyright infringement, at least when it comes to comics. That's, no doubt, an unfair generalisation, as comics are a pretty specific area but then, as an old college friend of mine used to delight in pointing out, generalisations are generally wrong.
The UK chancellor is apparently going to spend £150 million this summer with a view to expanding evoting.
“E-voting is a key measure to tackle so-called disengagement among young people,” said a Whitehall source. “Given the rapidly increasing use of text messages it is crucial that this is properly developed as a method of voting.”
Let's get the Big Brother and Pop Idol fans on their mobiles and that will solve the electoral participation crisis.
Give me strength. I'm seriuosly tempted to change the title of my book to Technology is The Answer to Everything (And The Eegits who believe this).
“E-voting is a key measure to tackle so-called disengagement among young people,” said a Whitehall source. “Given the rapidly increasing use of text messages it is crucial that this is properly developed as a method of voting.”
Let's get the Big Brother and Pop Idol fans on their mobiles and that will solve the electoral participation crisis.
Give me strength. I'm seriuosly tempted to change the title of my book to Technology is The Answer to Everything (And The Eegits who believe this).
Frank Field's latest contribution to the DRM debate - DRM is a folding chair.
"Here’s the real point – the folding chair really draws its effectiveness from the cultural norms that have built up around
it. An experienced Cambridge driver knows not to mess with a parking space that has a folding chair in it, even though she/he
has never experienced the consequences that I describe above. Speaking personally, I can’t name a single person who has
actually had this problem, but every Cambridge resident collectively knows that it would happen — even though a folding chair
is, practically speaking, a completely ineffective limit on the use of a parking space."
"Here’s the real point – the folding chair really draws its effectiveness from the cultural norms that have built up around
it. An experienced Cambridge driver knows not to mess with a parking space that has a folding chair in it, even though she/he
has never experienced the consequences that I describe above. Speaking personally, I can’t name a single person who has
actually had this problem, but every Cambridge resident collectively knows that it would happen — even though a folding chair
is, practically speaking, a completely ineffective limit on the use of a parking space."
Friday, May 07, 2004
Frank Field on cynicism.
"DRM is part of a process to break us of the nasty habit of thinking culture is a common good. Like a speed bump, it’s not about making us stop; it’s about making us recognize that someone thinks what we’re doing is wrong. And then usingour own naïvité to get us to stop. "
Makes me feel better that I'm not necessarily being "cynical", in the OED sense of the word, just attributing self serving motives to politicians and lobbyists.
"DRM is part of a process to break us of the nasty habit of thinking culture is a common good. Like a speed bump, it’s not about making us stop; it’s about making us recognize that someone thinks what we’re doing is wrong. And then usingour own naïvité to get us to stop. "
Makes me feel better that I'm not necessarily being "cynical", in the OED sense of the word, just attributing self serving motives to politicians and lobbyists.
There's a fascinating exhange of views going on between Ernest Miller, Ed Felten, and Frank Field on the subject of DRM, the broadcast flag and the copyfight in general.
Ernest believes bright people pushing for drm and other expansions of intellectual property rights have got a hidden agenda because they basically can't be stupid enough to really believe drm is going to prevent copyright infringement. So they must have a hidden agenda.
Ed says the some of folk pushing this agenda that he has discussed the issues with are passionate about what they are doing, really do believe it will work and needs to work in order to balance all the interests involved.
Frank partly supports Ed in suggesting we should never underestimate the power of ideology.
"The fact that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" derives from the fact that, in order to function in an increasingly complex world, everyone is forced to construct simplifying models of the way that the world works. When these models (a)
work and (b) are buttressed with rationalizing arguments, we get something more potent - an ideology.
The problem with ideologies is that, even though they work, they rely upon simplifications that will not obtain over time. These simplifications will eventually be the downfall of the ideology, but sometimes it takes a very long time before the failure of the ideology is recognized, meaning that a lot of bad (and potentially quite destructive) decisions get made in the interim...
Ernest is right; our opponents are not (all) stupid people. But they don't have nefarious ends. Rather, they're acting within the confines of the ideologies that they believe explain the way the world works. They aren't evil or stupid; they're just confused and frustrated. The old methods aren't working, even though they *know* their methods are "right." In fact, they're in exactly the same boat that we are. And we know we aren't evil.
Ideologies are hard to defeat, because they're invisible to those who hold them. To us, it's an ideology; to them, it's "the way the world works." Beating it will take time, being honest about what is happening and working really hard to devise a new way of looking at the world that we can collectively agree upon.
We can't afford to write them off as "evil." That's seductive, but dangerous because it simply isn't true. They're just doing what they think is right. We have to respect that as we work to show them that they're mistaken. "
Siva Vaidhyanathan makes some related commentsat the Lessig blog in telling the story of meeting someone who takes the view of "the other side". Some who thought Larry Lessig was "a kook". Siva now reckons elements on the two sides are beginning to understand each other because those pusshing for expanded protection of intellectual property rights are resorting to ad hominem attacks. Adn they are doing this because the Lessig's of the world are winning the argument. Interesting theory but as Seth Finkelstein says in commenting on Siva's post,
"Unfortunately, yes, I think you hang around too many people who actually read the books they criticize. You're a professor. Academics are *supposed* to be polite. Not that they always are. But there is a strong cultural belief there, as evident in what you?re writing, that ad-hominem arguments are "wrong". Again, it may be honored more in the breech than in the observance, it may be an ideal not always practiced, but it's part of the formal codes of conduct.
Hang out with lawyers and lobbyists and politicians more. To them, lying and smearing and ad-hominem attacks are *tactics*, debate *options*. Whether they use those approaches depends entirely on whether they think they can get away with it, that it'll work with the audience. It's a pure strategic calculation. They may decide they'll look bad if they lie. They may decide it's worth it. Situations vary. But the truth or intellectual strength of the argument bears a very tenuous relationship to the approaches employed.
I certainly don't see any change at all, in terms of Jack "Boston Strangler" Valenti style rhetoric.
And remember, a mosquito is slammed hard, but that doesn't mean it's powerful and influential.
So you can't derive "panic" from any of it. It may be that you just happened to run into a few people who think meanness is the way to go.
If the courts had been rebuffing the copyright extensions and the DMCA, then there might be panic. Otherwise, it's simply tactics."
Ernest believes bright people pushing for drm and other expansions of intellectual property rights have got a hidden agenda because they basically can't be stupid enough to really believe drm is going to prevent copyright infringement. So they must have a hidden agenda.
Ed says the some of folk pushing this agenda that he has discussed the issues with are passionate about what they are doing, really do believe it will work and needs to work in order to balance all the interests involved.
Frank partly supports Ed in suggesting we should never underestimate the power of ideology.
"The fact that "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" derives from the fact that, in order to function in an increasingly complex world, everyone is forced to construct simplifying models of the way that the world works. When these models (a)
work and (b) are buttressed with rationalizing arguments, we get something more potent - an ideology.
The problem with ideologies is that, even though they work, they rely upon simplifications that will not obtain over time. These simplifications will eventually be the downfall of the ideology, but sometimes it takes a very long time before the failure of the ideology is recognized, meaning that a lot of bad (and potentially quite destructive) decisions get made in the interim...
Ernest is right; our opponents are not (all) stupid people. But they don't have nefarious ends. Rather, they're acting within the confines of the ideologies that they believe explain the way the world works. They aren't evil or stupid; they're just confused and frustrated. The old methods aren't working, even though they *know* their methods are "right." In fact, they're in exactly the same boat that we are. And we know we aren't evil.
Ideologies are hard to defeat, because they're invisible to those who hold them. To us, it's an ideology; to them, it's "the way the world works." Beating it will take time, being honest about what is happening and working really hard to devise a new way of looking at the world that we can collectively agree upon.
We can't afford to write them off as "evil." That's seductive, but dangerous because it simply isn't true. They're just doing what they think is right. We have to respect that as we work to show them that they're mistaken. "
Siva Vaidhyanathan makes some related commentsat the Lessig blog in telling the story of meeting someone who takes the view of "the other side". Some who thought Larry Lessig was "a kook". Siva now reckons elements on the two sides are beginning to understand each other because those pusshing for expanded protection of intellectual property rights are resorting to ad hominem attacks. Adn they are doing this because the Lessig's of the world are winning the argument. Interesting theory but as Seth Finkelstein says in commenting on Siva's post,
"Unfortunately, yes, I think you hang around too many people who actually read the books they criticize. You're a professor. Academics are *supposed* to be polite. Not that they always are. But there is a strong cultural belief there, as evident in what you?re writing, that ad-hominem arguments are "wrong". Again, it may be honored more in the breech than in the observance, it may be an ideal not always practiced, but it's part of the formal codes of conduct.
Hang out with lawyers and lobbyists and politicians more. To them, lying and smearing and ad-hominem attacks are *tactics*, debate *options*. Whether they use those approaches depends entirely on whether they think they can get away with it, that it'll work with the audience. It's a pure strategic calculation. They may decide they'll look bad if they lie. They may decide it's worth it. Situations vary. But the truth or intellectual strength of the argument bears a very tenuous relationship to the approaches employed.
I certainly don't see any change at all, in terms of Jack "Boston Strangler" Valenti style rhetoric.
And remember, a mosquito is slammed hard, but that doesn't mean it's powerful and influential.
So you can't derive "panic" from any of it. It may be that you just happened to run into a few people who think meanness is the way to go.
If the courts had been rebuffing the copyright extensions and the DMCA, then there might be panic. Otherwise, it's simply tactics."
James Heald of Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) tells me that the Irish presidency of the EU are bypassing all the EU parliament and other objections to software patents and doing an end run round a vastly watered down software patents directive proposal.
"The powerful COREPER committee of EU member states' Permanent
Representatives in Brussels has provisionally agreed on a new draft for
the controversial Software Patent directive, overruling concerns from
the German, Belgian, and Danish delegations, and the Slovakian
non-voting observers. (The new accession countries only become full
voting members in November).
The new draft rejects all of the European Parliament's limiting
amendments, and is described by FFII as "the most uncompromisingly
pro-patent text yet".
The Coreper text also goes further than the original European Commission
text of 2002. In 2002 the Commission had agreed, in difficult
negotiations between DG Internal Market (Bolkestein) and DG Information
Society (Liikanen) not to allow program claims. Now it seems that DG
Information Society has rolled over to the united pressure of Bolkestein
and the Council's patent administrators.
A leaked document from Bolkestein's DG Internal Market suggests that DG
Information Society no longer objects to program claims. This concession
by Liikanen is needed in order to rush the Council working group
proposal through the ministers' session as an "A item", i.e. a consensus
point which does not need any discussion by the ministers.
Technically, the decision by COREPER on Wednesday is only a "forecast"
of the final decision, to be confirmed at the Competitiveness Council of
Ministers on 17-18 May. Until that date, Member states can still change
their minds (and their votes).
If confirmed by ministers, the text will form the basis for the
Directive's second reading in Parliament, after the EU elections. EU
rules make it far more difficult for the Parliament to make changes at
second reading.
Support for the text at a political level in some states is still said
to be quite soft; and decisions brokered in Coreper do fall apart (last
year's discussions on the Community Patent, for example).
FFII is therefore urging supporters to make their voices heard *now*,
especially software SMEs who make up the majority of the IT industry (eg
over 80% of IT jobs in Germany). In particular supporters should try to
mobilise organisations of which they are members, urgently try to meet
or contact local MPs and MEPs, and also Commissioner Liikanen's office
at DG Information Society."
Whatever your take on software patents, this is another example of the Irish presidency's slick understanding of and ability to exploit EU processes. As to their motivation, my perspective is that it is no more complicated than Bertie Ahern and co. wishing to be percieved as an "effective" presidency, "effectivenes" in this context being measured by how many things you get done, regardless of what those things are.
Boy I really am being cynical in the past couple of days. I should go an lie in a dark room and think about that book I should have been working on this week [and would have been if it had not been for my study leave being perpetually interrupted by administrative trivia].
"The powerful COREPER committee of EU member states' Permanent
Representatives in Brussels has provisionally agreed on a new draft for
the controversial Software Patent directive, overruling concerns from
the German, Belgian, and Danish delegations, and the Slovakian
non-voting observers. (The new accession countries only become full
voting members in November).
The new draft rejects all of the European Parliament's limiting
amendments, and is described by FFII as "the most uncompromisingly
pro-patent text yet".
The Coreper text also goes further than the original European Commission
text of 2002. In 2002 the Commission had agreed, in difficult
negotiations between DG Internal Market (Bolkestein) and DG Information
Society (Liikanen) not to allow program claims. Now it seems that DG
Information Society has rolled over to the united pressure of Bolkestein
and the Council's patent administrators.
A leaked document from Bolkestein's DG Internal Market suggests that DG
Information Society no longer objects to program claims. This concession
by Liikanen is needed in order to rush the Council working group
proposal through the ministers' session as an "A item", i.e. a consensus
point which does not need any discussion by the ministers.
Technically, the decision by COREPER on Wednesday is only a "forecast"
of the final decision, to be confirmed at the Competitiveness Council of
Ministers on 17-18 May. Until that date, Member states can still change
their minds (and their votes).
If confirmed by ministers, the text will form the basis for the
Directive's second reading in Parliament, after the EU elections. EU
rules make it far more difficult for the Parliament to make changes at
second reading.
Support for the text at a political level in some states is still said
to be quite soft; and decisions brokered in Coreper do fall apart (last
year's discussions on the Community Patent, for example).
FFII is therefore urging supporters to make their voices heard *now*,
especially software SMEs who make up the majority of the IT industry (eg
over 80% of IT jobs in Germany). In particular supporters should try to
mobilise organisations of which they are members, urgently try to meet
or contact local MPs and MEPs, and also Commissioner Liikanen's office
at DG Information Society."
Whatever your take on software patents, this is another example of the Irish presidency's slick understanding of and ability to exploit EU processes. As to their motivation, my perspective is that it is no more complicated than Bertie Ahern and co. wishing to be percieved as an "effective" presidency, "effectivenes" in this context being measured by how many things you get done, regardless of what those things are.
Boy I really am being cynical in the past couple of days. I should go an lie in a dark room and think about that book I should have been working on this week [and would have been if it had not been for my study leave being perpetually interrupted by administrative trivia].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)