Monday, March 07, 2005
Information Commissioner concerns
From Spy Blog: Information Commissioner memorandum expresses concerns over the Children Act 2004 section 12 Information databases. Includes some useful links on Guardian story I mentioned earlier.
No sw patents on sw patent directive passage
NoSoftwarePatents take on the EU council of ministers passing the software patents directive: Council sends a mockery of a CP to the EP
"The EU Council today adopted its Common Position on the software patent directive against the express will of various member countries. The text, which in the opinion of its critics is only a minority position today, had been previously agreed upon on 18 May 2004. Its formal adoption had failed repeatedly due to strong resistance by country governments and national parliaments. The minister from Luxembourg who chaired the meeting said: "We are adopting this Common Position today for institutional reasons as not to create a precedent" with implications to other processes in the Council.
Danish minister of economic affairs Bendt Bendtsen explained that Denmark would have preferred for the position to be renegotiated but that he was "not going to stand in the way of the formal adoption" and instead decided to attach a written declaration to the Common Position. The EU Affairs Committee of the Danish parliament had instructed him on Friday to demand a renegotiation of the controversial position. Various other countries had previously made uniteral declarations, including Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, and Cyprus.
The European Parliament will now have three months to reject or amend the proposal. For rejection or every single amendment, the EP needs a majority of the component members of parliaments, i.e. 367 votes irrespective of absences or abstentions.
Florian Mueller, who manages the pan-European NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, was in the Council building today to follow the discussion. In his immediate reaction, he said that "we as the opponents of software patents don't have to talk too much now about the democratic illegitimacy of this proposal because it's so obvious. Even the chairman of today's meeting conceded it." He said the focus would now have to be on the second reading in the European Parliament, and outlined his campaign's strategy: "We have a number of psychological and political success factors on our side. Still the hurdle is very high in a second reading, so as a matter of precaution, we have to take multiple bites at the apple and shoot for rejection and impactful amendments in parallel." The EP will have up to four opportunities to reject the proposal, two in a second reading (one before and one after the votes on proposed amendments), a third one in conciliation and a fourth one in a third reading."
Groklaw on same: "Here's my analysis: Money talks."
"The EU Council today adopted its Common Position on the software patent directive against the express will of various member countries. The text, which in the opinion of its critics is only a minority position today, had been previously agreed upon on 18 May 2004. Its formal adoption had failed repeatedly due to strong resistance by country governments and national parliaments. The minister from Luxembourg who chaired the meeting said: "We are adopting this Common Position today for institutional reasons as not to create a precedent" with implications to other processes in the Council.
Danish minister of economic affairs Bendt Bendtsen explained that Denmark would have preferred for the position to be renegotiated but that he was "not going to stand in the way of the formal adoption" and instead decided to attach a written declaration to the Common Position. The EU Affairs Committee of the Danish parliament had instructed him on Friday to demand a renegotiation of the controversial position. Various other countries had previously made uniteral declarations, including Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland, and Cyprus.
The European Parliament will now have three months to reject or amend the proposal. For rejection or every single amendment, the EP needs a majority of the component members of parliaments, i.e. 367 votes irrespective of absences or abstentions.
Florian Mueller, who manages the pan-European NoSoftwarePatents.com campaign, was in the Council building today to follow the discussion. In his immediate reaction, he said that "we as the opponents of software patents don't have to talk too much now about the democratic illegitimacy of this proposal because it's so obvious. Even the chairman of today's meeting conceded it." He said the focus would now have to be on the second reading in the European Parliament, and outlined his campaign's strategy: "We have a number of psychological and political success factors on our side. Still the hurdle is very high in a second reading, so as a matter of precaution, we have to take multiple bites at the apple and shoot for rejection and impactful amendments in parallel." The EP will have up to four opportunities to reject the proposal, two in a second reading (one before and one after the votes on proposed amendments), a third one in conciliation and a fourth one in a third reading."
Groklaw on same: "Here's my analysis: Money talks."
Software patents adopted by the EU
From FFII,
"7 March 2005 -- The Council Presidency today declared the software agreement of 18 May 2004 to have been adopted, in violation of the procedural rules and in spite of the evident lack of a qualified majority of member states and the requests of several states to reopen negotiations.
Report
Cyprus submitted a written declaration at the start of the Council session
Poland, Denmark, Portugal and others (not specified) asked for a B item (discussion point)
The Luxembourg presidency claimed this was not possible due to procedural reasons, and that this would have undermined the whole process -> it would stay on the list of A-items
Luxembourg then gave a long statement regarding how the EP still gets a chance in second reading, the importance of avoiding legal uncertainty etc.
Denmark said it was disappointed about this, but accepted and submitted a written declaration
Later on, the list of A items was accepted by the Council
Conclusion
Luxembourg negated the Council's own Rules of Procedure, which state that a B-item (which is at the same time a request to remove an A item) can only be rejected by the a majority of the Council, and not just by the Presidency. (art 3.8)
The objecting countries seem to have forgotten to request removal of the A-item from the agenda. Rules 3.1 + 3.7 would have given any single country the right to have the A-item removed, because the Luxemburg presidency had failed to insert it more than 14 days earlier. This is how Poland has removed A-items from the Agricultural & Fishery Council twice in the past.
This is a very sad day for democracy, and casts a very dark shadow over the European Constitution, which will give the Council even more power.
Council defense
Reportedly, the Danish minister (who was forced by a parliamentary committee to request a B-item, but did not like that at all) and the Luxembourg Council Presidency use the following paragraph as defense for their behaviour:
3.6. The provisional agenda shall be divided into Part A and Part B.
Items for which approval by the Council is possible without discussion
shall be included in Part A, but this does not exclude the possibility
of any member of the Council or of the Commission expressing an opinion
at the time of the approval of these items and having statements
included in the minutes.
This paragraph does not mention anything about the possibility to change an A item into a B item. Looking at rule 3.8, that one says:
3.8 "However, an A item shall be withdrawn from the agenda, unless the
Council decides otherwise, if a position on an A item might lead to
further discussion thereof or if a member of the Council or the
Commission so requests."
They might argue this still doesn't say anything about changing an A item into a B item, but Annex III of those same rules of procedure states on page 20, point 1(c):
(c) Article 3(8) (maintaining as a “B” item on the agenda an “A” item,
which would otherwise have had to be withdrawn from the agenda);
This clearly provides for the possibility of turning an A item into a B item.
Audio stream from Council session (sent by on-site activists)
Since the debate is over, the live stream links have been removed
Audio recording
Comments
Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member:
It is absolutely unfathomable what happened today. I cannot see how
the promoters of the European Constitution can still support it with
a straight face. This event shows that something is clearly rotten
in the city of Brussels at the Council building. Why on Earth do we
still have the rules that state that national parliaments should be
taken into account by the Council?
Things would be much easier if we scrapped all those rules and
simply wrote down "The Council presidency and Commission can
do together whatever they like". There's no need for those pesky
democratically elected parliamentarians to interfere with the smooth
decision making process of the Council, since its only goal appears
to be to please big business and to produce as many texts as the
sausage machine can bear.
This is absolutely disgusting.
Hartmut Pilch (english version soon):
Die nächste Frage ist jetzt, wie der Rechtsausschuss des reagiert, der
heute um 18.00 in Straßburg zu diesem Thema tagt.
Das EP muss nach EP-Regel 57 entscheiden, ob ein "Gemeinsamer
Standpunkt" vorliegt. Angesichts des heutigen eigenmächtigen
Verhaltens der Ratspräsidentschaft erscheint dies zweifelhaft.
Ohne "Geimeinsamen Standpunkt" kann das EP auch nicht zu einer
zweiten Lesung voranschreiten. Eventuell wird da der EuGH
entscheiden müssen. Auch die düpierten Regierungen von
Dänermark, Polen, Portugal etc haben Zugang zum EuGH. Für
uns übrige Europäer bleiben vielleicht nur Mittel wie eine
Bewegung gegen die EU, natürlich auch gegen die EU-Verfassung.
Auch wenn die Ziele der EU begrüßenswert sind, muss das Ausmaß
an Leid und Tyrannei, das wir um dieser Ziele willen in Kauf
zu nehmen bereit sind, irgendwo seine Grenzen haben. Wenn
wir die in diesem Fall nicht klar aufzeigen können, steht uns
noch viel Ungemach ins Haus, nicht nur von Seiten des Patentwesens.
Extra information
Council press briefing"
So that's it. After all the years of negotiations, lobbying, underhand politics etc., it gets railroaded through by the Luxembourg presidency, in breach of procedure because the attending objecting ministers have not got energy, political will (in spite, in Denmark's case of being instructed by the national parliament to do so) or the knowledge of procedures necessary to block it.
It's a sad day for constitutional democracy in the EU, even though in practice it remains to be seen how much real effect the directive will have, since the European Patent Office have been arguably granting software patents for years. The directive, as I understand it, will now go to the EU parliament for a second reading but the parliament has limited abilities to change or reject it - even if the parliament did decide to reject it I think it could still be passed by the Council of Ministers.
"7 March 2005 -- The Council Presidency today declared the software agreement of 18 May 2004 to have been adopted, in violation of the procedural rules and in spite of the evident lack of a qualified majority of member states and the requests of several states to reopen negotiations.
Report
Cyprus submitted a written declaration at the start of the Council session
Poland, Denmark, Portugal and others (not specified) asked for a B item (discussion point)
The Luxembourg presidency claimed this was not possible due to procedural reasons, and that this would have undermined the whole process -> it would stay on the list of A-items
Luxembourg then gave a long statement regarding how the EP still gets a chance in second reading, the importance of avoiding legal uncertainty etc.
Denmark said it was disappointed about this, but accepted and submitted a written declaration
Later on, the list of A items was accepted by the Council
Conclusion
Luxembourg negated the Council's own Rules of Procedure, which state that a B-item (which is at the same time a request to remove an A item) can only be rejected by the a majority of the Council, and not just by the Presidency. (art 3.8)
The objecting countries seem to have forgotten to request removal of the A-item from the agenda. Rules 3.1 + 3.7 would have given any single country the right to have the A-item removed, because the Luxemburg presidency had failed to insert it more than 14 days earlier. This is how Poland has removed A-items from the Agricultural & Fishery Council twice in the past.
This is a very sad day for democracy, and casts a very dark shadow over the European Constitution, which will give the Council even more power.
Council defense
Reportedly, the Danish minister (who was forced by a parliamentary committee to request a B-item, but did not like that at all) and the Luxembourg Council Presidency use the following paragraph as defense for their behaviour:
3.6. The provisional agenda shall be divided into Part A and Part B.
Items for which approval by the Council is possible without discussion
shall be included in Part A, but this does not exclude the possibility
of any member of the Council or of the Commission expressing an opinion
at the time of the approval of these items and having statements
included in the minutes.
This paragraph does not mention anything about the possibility to change an A item into a B item. Looking at rule 3.8, that one says:
3.8 "However, an A item shall be withdrawn from the agenda, unless the
Council decides otherwise, if a position on an A item might lead to
further discussion thereof or if a member of the Council or the
Commission so requests."
They might argue this still doesn't say anything about changing an A item into a B item, but Annex III of those same rules of procedure states on page 20, point 1(c):
(c) Article 3(8) (maintaining as a “B” item on the agenda an “A” item,
which would otherwise have had to be withdrawn from the agenda);
This clearly provides for the possibility of turning an A item into a B item.
Audio stream from Council session (sent by on-site activists)
Since the debate is over, the live stream links have been removed
Audio recording
Comments
Jonas Maebe, FFII Board Member:
It is absolutely unfathomable what happened today. I cannot see how
the promoters of the European Constitution can still support it with
a straight face. This event shows that something is clearly rotten
in the city of Brussels at the Council building. Why on Earth do we
still have the rules that state that national parliaments should be
taken into account by the Council?
Things would be much easier if we scrapped all those rules and
simply wrote down "The Council presidency and Commission can
do together whatever they like". There's no need for those pesky
democratically elected parliamentarians to interfere with the smooth
decision making process of the Council, since its only goal appears
to be to please big business and to produce as many texts as the
sausage machine can bear.
This is absolutely disgusting.
Hartmut Pilch (english version soon):
Die nächste Frage ist jetzt, wie der Rechtsausschuss des reagiert, der
heute um 18.00 in Straßburg zu diesem Thema tagt.
Das EP muss nach EP-Regel 57 entscheiden, ob ein "Gemeinsamer
Standpunkt" vorliegt. Angesichts des heutigen eigenmächtigen
Verhaltens der Ratspräsidentschaft erscheint dies zweifelhaft.
Ohne "Geimeinsamen Standpunkt" kann das EP auch nicht zu einer
zweiten Lesung voranschreiten. Eventuell wird da der EuGH
entscheiden müssen. Auch die düpierten Regierungen von
Dänermark, Polen, Portugal etc haben Zugang zum EuGH. Für
uns übrige Europäer bleiben vielleicht nur Mittel wie eine
Bewegung gegen die EU, natürlich auch gegen die EU-Verfassung.
Auch wenn die Ziele der EU begrüßenswert sind, muss das Ausmaß
an Leid und Tyrannei, das wir um dieser Ziele willen in Kauf
zu nehmen bereit sind, irgendwo seine Grenzen haben. Wenn
wir die in diesem Fall nicht klar aufzeigen können, steht uns
noch viel Ungemach ins Haus, nicht nur von Seiten des Patentwesens.
Extra information
Council press briefing"
So that's it. After all the years of negotiations, lobbying, underhand politics etc., it gets railroaded through by the Luxembourg presidency, in breach of procedure because the attending objecting ministers have not got energy, political will (in spite, in Denmark's case of being instructed by the national parliament to do so) or the knowledge of procedures necessary to block it.
It's a sad day for constitutional democracy in the EU, even though in practice it remains to be seen how much real effect the directive will have, since the European Patent Office have been arguably granting software patents for years. The directive, as I understand it, will now go to the EU parliament for a second reading but the parliament has limited abilities to change or reject it - even if the parliament did decide to reject it I think it could still be passed by the Council of Ministers.
Council of ministers approve sw patents?
The BBC are reporting that the council of ministers have approved the software patents directive. The report is somewhat confused, however, so we'll need to wait for further details.
Funny
This is funny.
""Excellent day isn't it?" the Boss blurts, entering Mission Control on a natural high.
"Your Job number is..... >clickety< 273108B for Bravo," I say.
"What?"
"Your job number for getting my opinion of the day, it's 273108B. I'll add the 'what?' question as a sub job of this job. I'll get someone to get back to you with an opinion of the day within 15 minutes."
"Is this some sort of joke?"
"Joke.... Joke..." the PFY says thoughtfully. "I think we have something about Joke in our knowledge base." >clickety< "Yes, here it is Jon 183977C. Ends with 'Don't call me wooden eye'. Was that what you were asking about?"...
sn't it funny how quickly a policy can be reversed once upper management have time to think about it?"
""Excellent day isn't it?" the Boss blurts, entering Mission Control on a natural high.
"Your Job number is..... >clickety< 273108B for Bravo," I say.
"What?"
"Your job number for getting my opinion of the day, it's 273108B. I'll add the 'what?' question as a sub job of this job. I'll get someone to get back to you with an opinion of the day within 15 minutes."
"Is this some sort of joke?"
"Joke.... Joke..." the PFY says thoughtfully. "I think we have something about Joke in our knowledge base." >clickety< "Yes, here it is Jon 183977C. Ends with 'Don't call me wooden eye'. Was that what you were asking about?"...
sn't it funny how quickly a policy can be reversed once upper management have time to think about it?"
ID scheme to bite dust in pre-election terror rush?
ID scheme to bite dust in pre-election terror rush? - John Lettice in the Register. Acerbic.
Larry Lessig: the comedy of the commons. At IT Conversations.
Copyright and social justice: " Copyright directly controls access to another basic human right: the right to information."
Economic and Political Freedom: Does One Lead to the Other? Cerebral.
Larry Lessig: the comedy of the commons. At IT Conversations.
Copyright and social justice: " Copyright directly controls access to another basic human right: the right to information."
Economic and Political Freedom: Does One Lead to the Other? Cerebral.
Danes save Europe from software patents?
Danes save Europe from software patents? Cory Doctorow suggests the Danes may be stepping into the fray this time (today)to prevent the EU Council of Ministers from slipping through the software patents directive.
Dictionary of National Biography: $15,000, buggy -- better than Wikipedia?
Dictionary of National Biography: $15,000, buggy -- better than Wikipedia? Cory says:
"The latest salvo in the Wikipedia-versus-the-world wars: the new edition of the Oxford University Press Dictionary of National Biography -- ringing in at nearly $15,000 -- is riddled with factual errors. If these errors had appeared in Wikipedia entries, its likely that they would have been fixed in short order"
"The latest salvo in the Wikipedia-versus-the-world wars: the new edition of the Oxford University Press Dictionary of National Biography -- ringing in at nearly $15,000 -- is riddled with factual errors. If these errors had appeared in Wikipedia entries, its likely that they would have been fixed in short order"
Research Findings Should be Made Accessible to Public
Research Findings Should be Made Accessible to Public
"Remember Lorenzo? The little kid with the wasting genetic disease in the 1992 movie "Lorenzo's Oil"?
After the doctors had given up on him, Lorenzo's dad, played by Nick Nolte, went on a tear. He researched everything known about his son's disease and came up with a treatment.
Today, Lorenzo's dad would probably have to live near a major university with a giant subscription budget to access the latest research.
Here's one example. It costs about as much to buy a year's subscription to the Journal of Applied Polymer Science as a 2005 Toyota Corolla. The price of each approaches $13,000...
Scholarship hasn't always been so pricey. Scholars used to write up their discoveries and give them to scholarly societies. The societies published them for other scholars to see."
"Remember Lorenzo? The little kid with the wasting genetic disease in the 1992 movie "Lorenzo's Oil"?
After the doctors had given up on him, Lorenzo's dad, played by Nick Nolte, went on a tear. He researched everything known about his son's disease and came up with a treatment.
Today, Lorenzo's dad would probably have to live near a major university with a giant subscription budget to access the latest research.
Here's one example. It costs about as much to buy a year's subscription to the Journal of Applied Polymer Science as a 2005 Toyota Corolla. The price of each approaches $13,000...
Scholarship hasn't always been so pricey. Scholars used to write up their discoveries and give them to scholarly societies. The societies published them for other scholars to see."
MGM v. Grokster: Conservatives Speak
MGM v. Grokster: Conservatives Speak
"March 04, 2005
The American Conservative Union and the National Taxpayers Union have this to say in their brief [PDF] about the dangers (to podcasting, among other things) of judges expanding the reach of copyright's statutory monopoly:
Petitioners seek, in effect, a declaration that peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies are within their statutory copyright monopoly, that they can exclude others from distributing these technologies, and that, therefore, the developers and distributors of these technologies must obtain Petitioners' permission before distributing any such services or systems. The Court should see this for what it is—an attempt to leverage a lawful, but statutorily limited, monopoly over the distribution of expressive "works of authorship" into an unwarranted and anti-competitive monopoly over the distribution of innovative technologies.
...
Podcasting, of course, is merely one of innumerable examples of innovative technology that builds upon, and interacts with, the peer-to-peer distribution networks of the kind that Respondents have enabled. Millions of Americans are engaged in the business of building, developing, and using these technologies, and every one of them—every podcaster, every potential podcaster, every potential consumer of podcasting services, and every owner of an iPod or other mobile digital audio device—has a real and concrete stake in this llitigation, an interest that the Court must take into account."
"March 04, 2005
The American Conservative Union and the National Taxpayers Union have this to say in their brief [PDF] about the dangers (to podcasting, among other things) of judges expanding the reach of copyright's statutory monopoly:
Petitioners seek, in effect, a declaration that peer-to-peer file-sharing technologies are within their statutory copyright monopoly, that they can exclude others from distributing these technologies, and that, therefore, the developers and distributors of these technologies must obtain Petitioners' permission before distributing any such services or systems. The Court should see this for what it is—an attempt to leverage a lawful, but statutorily limited, monopoly over the distribution of expressive "works of authorship" into an unwarranted and anti-competitive monopoly over the distribution of innovative technologies.
...
Podcasting, of course, is merely one of innumerable examples of innovative technology that builds upon, and interacts with, the peer-to-peer distribution networks of the kind that Respondents have enabled. Millions of Americans are engaged in the business of building, developing, and using these technologies, and every one of them—every podcaster, every potential podcaster, every potential consumer of podcasting services, and every owner of an iPod or other mobile digital audio device—has a real and concrete stake in this llitigation, an interest that the Court must take into account."
Private firms to police terror orders
Private firms to police terror orders.
"Private security staff are to be used to monitor the controversial new anti-terrorist control orders in an attempt to save money, according to preparations being made to implement the policy by the Home Office...
Harry Fletcher, of Napo, the probation officers union, said if the government was right and "these people were amongst the most dangerous in the country, the monitoring should be the responsibility of the state and not private security companies. The information that will be available to these people will be highly sensitive.
"To have private companies in the intelligence loop could compromise that process. The people who currently monitor electronic tags are predominantly low paid with minimal training. Do we really want national security in these hands?""
"Private security staff are to be used to monitor the controversial new anti-terrorist control orders in an attempt to save money, according to preparations being made to implement the policy by the Home Office...
Harry Fletcher, of Napo, the probation officers union, said if the government was right and "these people were amongst the most dangerous in the country, the monitoring should be the responsibility of the state and not private security companies. The information that will be available to these people will be highly sensitive.
"To have private companies in the intelligence loop could compromise that process. The people who currently monitor electronic tags are predominantly low paid with minimal training. Do we really want national security in these hands?""
Child database will breach ECHR
The Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, has said that the government's proposed database on all children in the UK risks breaching the European Convention on Human Rights.
" in a highly detailed, 11-page submission to the education and skills select committee, Thomas has expressed technical and legal concerns which threaten the database's creation.
His chief fear is that the database breaches Article 8 of the convention, which states that somebody's personal information should be subject to strict rules governing their privacy and confidentiality.
In addition, Thomas said the government's decision to put the names of every child in England and Wales on the database was 'difficult to justify as a proportionate response'. As such, the size and scope of the government's plans for the database makes it likely they will breach the convention.
Thomas also warned that the sheer size of the database would make it costly to keep up to date and might not help authorities to spot children at risk because it 'increases the size of the haystack when hunting for a needle'."
" in a highly detailed, 11-page submission to the education and skills select committee, Thomas has expressed technical and legal concerns which threaten the database's creation.
His chief fear is that the database breaches Article 8 of the convention, which states that somebody's personal information should be subject to strict rules governing their privacy and confidentiality.
In addition, Thomas said the government's decision to put the names of every child in England and Wales on the database was 'difficult to justify as a proportionate response'. As such, the size and scope of the government's plans for the database makes it likely they will breach the convention.
Thomas also warned that the sheer size of the database would make it costly to keep up to date and might not help authorities to spot children at risk because it 'increases the size of the haystack when hunting for a needle'."
Bad laws won't stop the bombers
Andrew Rawnsley has a neat piece in yesterday's Observer, explaining why the current government have been passing such draconian laws. It's not that they believe ID cards or the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act and the latest changes giving the Home Secretary the power to lock up UK citizens indefinitely without trial will actually be effective in the fight against terrorism. It is just that they are terrified that, if some major terrorist atrocity does happen before the election, the electorate will turn on them and vote them out blaming them for not doing enough to prevent the tragedy.
"Ministers speak frankly - well, at least in private they speak frankly - of their nightmares about a Madrid-style horror, and possibly something 10 times as cataclysmic, happening in Britain. It is the big and terrifying unpredictable about the time between now and election day. Public opinion might rally to the government. Or it might swing angrily against Ministers. No one knows. Not knowing petrifies them. This is driving a panic not to give anyone any reason to be able to point a finger of blame that the government didn't prevent an avoidable atrocity...
There is something to be said in favour of ministers being so terrified of terrorism. Better that they are alert than complacent about what is a real and present danger. The trouble is that fear is a very bad midwife of legislation...
There is only one thing worse than making complex, sensitive and unprecedented law in a rush of fear. That is doing it in a pre-election panic as well."
So as long as people believe the government have done all they possibly can to prevent the terrorist act, it doesn't matter too much whether their efforts actually are effective.
Here's where Bruce Schneier's constant lessons about security theatre and the agenda of the decision maker comes together so starkly. Yet in pretending that they are doing as much as they can, in order to be perceived to be doing as much as they can, they are actually making us less secure. Charles Clarke may well be a very nice fellah and impeccably well intentioned. I don't know him personally so I don't know. And he may take appropriately considered and balanced judgements when he faced with pressures to detain suspects without trial. But he is not going to be Home Secretary forever. There will come a time when a less well intentioned or a weaker character comes into that office and we should be concerned about the kinds of judgements that less well qualified individual will make in similar circumstances.
With regard to the government's fear about the electorate turning on the Spanish government in the wake of the Madrid bombings, what I find surprising in most analyses is the simplistic notion that they were voted out because they didn't prevent the bombings. I'd suggest that the unseemly haste with which elements of the then Spanish government rushed to the media, their first priority clearly being to manage the public relations angle, rather than to address the immense human tragedy, might have had a little to do with their downfall.
"Ministers speak frankly - well, at least in private they speak frankly - of their nightmares about a Madrid-style horror, and possibly something 10 times as cataclysmic, happening in Britain. It is the big and terrifying unpredictable about the time between now and election day. Public opinion might rally to the government. Or it might swing angrily against Ministers. No one knows. Not knowing petrifies them. This is driving a panic not to give anyone any reason to be able to point a finger of blame that the government didn't prevent an avoidable atrocity...
There is something to be said in favour of ministers being so terrified of terrorism. Better that they are alert than complacent about what is a real and present danger. The trouble is that fear is a very bad midwife of legislation...
There is only one thing worse than making complex, sensitive and unprecedented law in a rush of fear. That is doing it in a pre-election panic as well."
So as long as people believe the government have done all they possibly can to prevent the terrorist act, it doesn't matter too much whether their efforts actually are effective.
Here's where Bruce Schneier's constant lessons about security theatre and the agenda of the decision maker comes together so starkly. Yet in pretending that they are doing as much as they can, in order to be perceived to be doing as much as they can, they are actually making us less secure. Charles Clarke may well be a very nice fellah and impeccably well intentioned. I don't know him personally so I don't know. And he may take appropriately considered and balanced judgements when he faced with pressures to detain suspects without trial. But he is not going to be Home Secretary forever. There will come a time when a less well intentioned or a weaker character comes into that office and we should be concerned about the kinds of judgements that less well qualified individual will make in similar circumstances.
With regard to the government's fear about the electorate turning on the Spanish government in the wake of the Madrid bombings, what I find surprising in most analyses is the simplistic notion that they were voted out because they didn't prevent the bombings. I'd suggest that the unseemly haste with which elements of the then Spanish government rushed to the media, their first priority clearly being to manage the public relations angle, rather than to address the immense human tragedy, might have had a little to do with their downfall.
How President Bush won the election
Aaron Swartz on neo-conservatism - or how the republicans won the election through what he suggests was a strategy to lie.
"Frank Luntz is a chief Reppublican strategist. His company, the Luntz Research Corporation, advises major companies and top Republican politicians on how to talk. Luntz’s methods — which he has been ahppy to describe in numerous interviews — are simple: take a topic, think up a number of ways to lie about it, record someone saying them, play the recording for an audience, and ask the audience which lie was most convincing. (Luntz then, of course, tells the person hiring him to use that convincing lie.)"
"Frank Luntz is a chief Reppublican strategist. His company, the Luntz Research Corporation, advises major companies and top Republican politicians on how to talk. Luntz’s methods — which he has been ahppy to describe in numerous interviews — are simple: take a topic, think up a number of ways to lie about it, record someone saying them, play the recording for an audience, and ask the audience which lie was most convincing. (Luntz then, of course, tells the person hiring him to use that convincing lie.)"
Friday, March 04, 2005
SW patents try try again
The Council of Ministers are to have another go at passing the software patents directive this coming Monday.
Broadcast flag
"As the FCC and the entertainment biz get ready to end home recording as we know it, a bunch of radical geeks are working on a solution or two." says Annalee Newitz of the EFF
Moglen on Grokster
Cory is particularly impressed with the Eben Moglen's brief in the Grokster case.
"The Free Software Foundation and New Yorkers for Fair Use have filed a brief in Grokster, EFF's Supreme Court case to establish the legality of P2P networks. Eben Moglen, the author of the brief, really lights into the RIAA and MPAA -- he's a fantastic writer:
At the heart of Petitioners' argument is an arrogant and unreasonable claim--even if made to the legislature empowered to determine such a general issue of social policy--that the Internet must be designed for the convenience of their business model, and to the extent that its design reflects other concerns, the Internet should be illegal.
Petitioners' view of what constitutes the foundation of copyright law in the digital age is as notable for its carefully-assumed air of technical naivete as for the audacity with which it identifies their financial interest with the purpose of the entire legal regime.
Despite petitioners' apocalyptic rhetoric, this case follows a familiar pattern in the history of copyright: incumbent rights-holders have often objected to new technologies of distribution that force innovation on the understandably reluctant monopolist."
"The Free Software Foundation and New Yorkers for Fair Use have filed a brief in Grokster, EFF's Supreme Court case to establish the legality of P2P networks. Eben Moglen, the author of the brief, really lights into the RIAA and MPAA -- he's a fantastic writer:
At the heart of Petitioners' argument is an arrogant and unreasonable claim--even if made to the legislature empowered to determine such a general issue of social policy--that the Internet must be designed for the convenience of their business model, and to the extent that its design reflects other concerns, the Internet should be illegal.
Petitioners' view of what constitutes the foundation of copyright law in the digital age is as notable for its carefully-assumed air of technical naivete as for the audacity with which it identifies their financial interest with the purpose of the entire legal regime.
Despite petitioners' apocalyptic rhetoric, this case follows a familiar pattern in the history of copyright: incumbent rights-holders have often objected to new technologies of distribution that force innovation on the understandably reluctant monopolist."
NO2ID FAQ
NO2ID have a useful list of frequently asked questions about the proposed identity card scheme.
Plagarism is the sincerest form of flattery - Controversy in the Kenyan blogosphere
Plagarism is the sincerest form of flattery - Controversy in the Kenyan blogosphere
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)