Project Semaphore, The UK's equivalent of the US 'Secure Flight' passenger profiling system, is to get enshrined in UK law. Semaphore, strangely enough, has received nothing like the level of negative publicity targeted at Secure Flight. It's actually had very little publicity at all but has been running as a limited pilot project for over a year now. Alan Travis at the Guardian says:
"The police and security services are to be given access to advanced travel details on more than 40 million passengers a year who travel on domestic flights and ferries within Britain under legislation to be announced tomorrow.
The new power in the police and justice bill will give the authorities the ability to screen and track the movements of suspected terrorists and serious criminals within Britain for the first time...
The new system will enable them to check names against watchlists for terror suspects and wanted criminals and to develop a "profiling system" of those worthy of further scrutiny. It is hoped that the system will help the security services develop a picture of terror and crime suspects' travel patterns and networks...
The monitoring of domestic travellers builds on the experience of a three-year pilot scheme under which the details of 10 million passengers on selected international flights have been monitored since last January.
Known as Project Semaphore this pilot scheme receives data on passengers leaving Britain only after their flights have left, yet the Home Office claims that eight terror suspects have been detained in the UK or overseas as a result. One person has also been arrested for indecency and a child porn suspect identified. The police say that access to advance information would have enabled them to stop the terror suspects boarding their flights."
Here we go again with the false assumption that mass surveillance will somehow automatically, with the aid of magical computing technology, point out the bad guys. Moreover this magic technology will obviate the need for difficult police and intelligence work by many law enforcement and intelligence personnel engaged in gathering intelligence, developing sources, targetting and monitoring suspects, real human suspect surveillance, prevention, rapid response to criminal acts, arresting and detaining suspects, gathering evidence, advising on and supporting physical security, following money trails, community policing and all that other real life hard stuff.
Even if the technology is effective 99% of the time (and it's nowhere near that yet) there are millions of people travelling through UK airports every year and the number s of false positives will be huge. As Bruce Schneier says,
"Security systems fail in two different ways. The first is the obvious one: they fail to detect, stop, catch, or whatever, the bad guys. The second is more common, and often more important: they wrongly detect, stop, catch, or whatever, an innocent person. This story is from the New Zealand Herald:
A New Zealand resident who sent $5000 to his ill uncle in India had the money frozen for nearly a month because his name matched that of several men on a terrorist watch list.
Because there are far more innocent people than guilty ones, this second type of error is far more common than the first type. Security is always a trade-off, and when you're trading off positives and negatives, you have to look at these sorts of things.
Well 9 suspected criminals have allegedly been detained because of Semaphore, which sounds great until you look at the statistics, which suggest that at least eight of them are probably innocent, assuming, of course that Semaphore pointers were the only reason these folks were detained. It's hard to know until the details of the specific cases come out but I suspect there was some real police and intelligence work involved in these cases too.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Monday, January 23, 2006
Why ID cards should be compulsory
Toby Stevens has had the strange experience finding himself agreeing with the Lord Chancellor:
"This is surprising enough, since in my opinion he has overseen the dismantling of some of the pillars of democracy in the UK. What worries me more, is that his statement about the National Identity scheme sounded reasonable. The BBC quotes him as follows:
"The question is should you require - and I think ultimately, unless there is compulsion, you won't get the benefits of an ID card system - is it right to compel those that don't have a passport also to get an ID card...
Now, if we go back to basic principles, I think he's right. I've long worried that any National ID scheme is essentially useless unless it is compulsory; otherwise what's the point? After all, without compulsion we have a scenario of the state interacting with the citizen as follows:
---
[Scene One: a pea-souper in Old London Town. A British Bobby proceeds out of the mist to encounter a swarthy looking character in a stripy top and mask, with a bag marked 'Swag' on his shoulder]
[Bobby] "'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then? You look like a wrong 'un sir, and no mistake. Would you care to show me your ID card please?"
[Wrong 'un] "Leave it aht officer, I ain't got none."
[Bobby] "Oh, very well sir. Just you make sure you drop in at your local station some time in the next week with your card, there's a good gentleman. On your way, and goood day to you."
Not a very compelling argument for claiming that a National ID Card would support national security, unless we make it compulsory. But is that compulsion within the government's powers?
The big hole in Lord Falconer's argument is that without some pretty intensive policy laundering in Brussels, the government will (quite rightly) never achieve compulsion: EU visitors may enter the UK on a passport for up to 3 months, and the government has no powers to force a citizen to accept a particular document...
[The scene: a high street bank. Happy customers stand in an orderly queue awaiting the attention of the single cashier on duty. A customer arrives at the front of the queue]
[Customer] "Excuse me, miss."
[Cashier] "Eh?"
[Customer] "I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to open a bank account."
[Cashier] "Of course you may, sir. Please could I see a form of identification?"
[Customer] "I 'ave 'ere a National Identification Card."
[Cashier] "Ah, I'm sorry sir, but we'll require some additional form of identification. Do you have a gas bill or credit card statement...
If the government were to guarantee the card up to, say, £2,500, then retailers and banks would know to what extent they could trust it. That same guarantee has to be offered to citizens in case (dare I say it?) their identities are stolen. After all, the Home Secretary has promised 100% security from the scheme, so what's the problem with putting a cash value to that security, when the government will never have to pay out? (Answers on a postcard please)"
Wonderful.
"This is surprising enough, since in my opinion he has overseen the dismantling of some of the pillars of democracy in the UK. What worries me more, is that his statement about the National Identity scheme sounded reasonable. The BBC quotes him as follows:
"The question is should you require - and I think ultimately, unless there is compulsion, you won't get the benefits of an ID card system - is it right to compel those that don't have a passport also to get an ID card...
Now, if we go back to basic principles, I think he's right. I've long worried that any National ID scheme is essentially useless unless it is compulsory; otherwise what's the point? After all, without compulsion we have a scenario of the state interacting with the citizen as follows:
---
[Scene One: a pea-souper in Old London Town. A British Bobby proceeds out of the mist to encounter a swarthy looking character in a stripy top and mask, with a bag marked 'Swag' on his shoulder]
[Bobby] "'Ello, 'ello, 'ello, what's all this then? You look like a wrong 'un sir, and no mistake. Would you care to show me your ID card please?"
[Wrong 'un] "Leave it aht officer, I ain't got none."
[Bobby] "Oh, very well sir. Just you make sure you drop in at your local station some time in the next week with your card, there's a good gentleman. On your way, and goood day to you."
Not a very compelling argument for claiming that a National ID Card would support national security, unless we make it compulsory. But is that compulsion within the government's powers?
The big hole in Lord Falconer's argument is that without some pretty intensive policy laundering in Brussels, the government will (quite rightly) never achieve compulsion: EU visitors may enter the UK on a passport for up to 3 months, and the government has no powers to force a citizen to accept a particular document...
[The scene: a high street bank. Happy customers stand in an orderly queue awaiting the attention of the single cashier on duty. A customer arrives at the front of the queue]
[Customer] "Excuse me, miss."
[Cashier] "Eh?"
[Customer] "I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to open a bank account."
[Cashier] "Of course you may, sir. Please could I see a form of identification?"
[Customer] "I 'ave 'ere a National Identification Card."
[Cashier] "Ah, I'm sorry sir, but we'll require some additional form of identification. Do you have a gas bill or credit card statement...
If the government were to guarantee the card up to, say, £2,500, then retailers and banks would know to what extent they could trust it. That same guarantee has to be offered to citizens in case (dare I say it?) their identities are stolen. After all, the Home Secretary has promised 100% security from the scheme, so what's the problem with putting a cash value to that security, when the government will never have to pay out? (Answers on a postcard please)"
Wonderful.
BBC music panel on drm
A couple of weeks ago the BBC set up a digital music: ask the industry panel to answer the general public's questions about how the industry are dealing with digital technologies.
Nice to see lots of sensible if sometimes rather blunt questions about drm.
"DRM is used, we are told, to protect artists from copyright theft. Yet so far, no existing DRM scheme has been successful in keeping music from being pirated on P2P networks. Given this failure, why do record companies continue to push DRM schemes that do nothing to protect artists, and do everything to discourage consumers from buying their works?"
"This was the first year I specifically asked family & friends not to buy me any CDs for Christmas. Why? Because of the increase in CD DRM making it difficult to rip legally purchased music to my MP3 player. Hence I can safely say that I would not ever buy DRM protected music online, as it is too intangible/inflexible to be worth the money.
Why does the music industry not understand that it is alienating its customers by treating us like criminals?"
"Why do adverts for music download services such as Napster usually fail to explain what MP3 players they will work with? I have tried to use a couple of services only to find out at the end that they do not work with the iPod. A bit of honesty would be a step forward. Selling music in MP3 format so it works everywhere would be a giant leap for mankind."
"I have an iPod so must either use iTunes or rip from CD. But that's not going to be the case forever. My next player may be a different make. But if I buy from iTunes I can't transfer the music to a non AAC player, and I can't buy WMA as it won't play on my machine.
Are you trying to turn me into a criminal to get music? Or just rip me off blind to get it?"
The panel's responses are due tomorrow. Expect the usual rhetoric.
Nice to see lots of sensible if sometimes rather blunt questions about drm.
"DRM is used, we are told, to protect artists from copyright theft. Yet so far, no existing DRM scheme has been successful in keeping music from being pirated on P2P networks. Given this failure, why do record companies continue to push DRM schemes that do nothing to protect artists, and do everything to discourage consumers from buying their works?"
"This was the first year I specifically asked family & friends not to buy me any CDs for Christmas. Why? Because of the increase in CD DRM making it difficult to rip legally purchased music to my MP3 player. Hence I can safely say that I would not ever buy DRM protected music online, as it is too intangible/inflexible to be worth the money.
Why does the music industry not understand that it is alienating its customers by treating us like criminals?"
"Why do adverts for music download services such as Napster usually fail to explain what MP3 players they will work with? I have tried to use a couple of services only to find out at the end that they do not work with the iPod. A bit of honesty would be a step forward. Selling music in MP3 format so it works everywhere would be a giant leap for mankind."
"I have an iPod so must either use iTunes or rip from CD. But that's not going to be the case forever. My next player may be a different make. But if I buy from iTunes I can't transfer the music to a non AAC player, and I can't buy WMA as it won't play on my machine.
Are you trying to turn me into a criminal to get music? Or just rip me off blind to get it?"
The panel's responses are due tomorrow. Expect the usual rhetoric.
Analog hole bill implements secret law
Ed Felton has been worrying about the secret laws to be implemented via technical architecture, specifically a proprietary copy protection technology called VEIL.
"If you'?ve been reading here lately, you know that I'?m no fan of the Sensenbrenner/Conyers analog hole bill. The bill would require almost all analog video devices to implement two technologies called CGMS-A and VEIL. CGMS-A is reasonably well known, but the VEIL content protection technology is relatively new. I wanted to learn more about it.
So I emailed the company that sells VEIL and asked for a copy of the specification. I figured I would be able to get it. After all, the bill would make compliance with the VEIL spec mandatory -? the spec would in effect be part of the law. Surely, I thought, they're not proposing passing a secret law. Surely they'?re not going to say that the citizenry isn'?t allowed to know whatÂ?s in the law that Congress is considering. We're talking about television here, not national security.
After some discussion, the company helpfully explained that I could get the spec, if I first signed their license agreement. The agreement requires me (a) to pay them $10,000, and (b) to promise not to talk to anybody about what is in the spec. In other words, I can know the contents of the bill Congress is debating, but only if I pay $10k to a private party, and only if I promise not to tell anybody what is in the bill or engage in public debate about it.
Worse yet, this license covers only half of the technology: the VEIL decoder, which detects VEIL signals. There is no way you or I can find out about the encoder technology that puts VEIL signals into video.
The details of this technology are important for evaluating this bill. How much would the proposed law increase the cost of televisions? How much would it limit the future development of TV technology? How likely is the technology to mistakenly block authorized copying? How adaptable is the technology to the future? All of these questions are important in debating the bill. And none of them can be answered if the technology part of the bill is secret.
Which brings us to the most interesting question of all: Are the members of Congress themselves, and their staffers, allowed to see the spec and talk about it openly? Are they allowed to consult experts for advice? Or are the full contents of this bill secret even from the lawmakers who are considering it?"
It would be comical if it wasn't so serious. Congress want to mandate a secret technology the details of which will only be made known to only those US citizens who will pay $10k to a private party, and only if they promise not to tell anybody what is in the technology or engage in public debate about it. You could call it hardlaw as opposed to hardware I suppose.
"If you'?ve been reading here lately, you know that I'?m no fan of the Sensenbrenner/Conyers analog hole bill. The bill would require almost all analog video devices to implement two technologies called CGMS-A and VEIL. CGMS-A is reasonably well known, but the VEIL content protection technology is relatively new. I wanted to learn more about it.
So I emailed the company that sells VEIL and asked for a copy of the specification. I figured I would be able to get it. After all, the bill would make compliance with the VEIL spec mandatory -? the spec would in effect be part of the law. Surely, I thought, they're not proposing passing a secret law. Surely they'?re not going to say that the citizenry isn'?t allowed to know whatÂ?s in the law that Congress is considering. We're talking about television here, not national security.
After some discussion, the company helpfully explained that I could get the spec, if I first signed their license agreement. The agreement requires me (a) to pay them $10,000, and (b) to promise not to talk to anybody about what is in the spec. In other words, I can know the contents of the bill Congress is debating, but only if I pay $10k to a private party, and only if I promise not to tell anybody what is in the bill or engage in public debate about it.
Worse yet, this license covers only half of the technology: the VEIL decoder, which detects VEIL signals. There is no way you or I can find out about the encoder technology that puts VEIL signals into video.
The details of this technology are important for evaluating this bill. How much would the proposed law increase the cost of televisions? How much would it limit the future development of TV technology? How likely is the technology to mistakenly block authorized copying? How adaptable is the technology to the future? All of these questions are important in debating the bill. And none of them can be answered if the technology part of the bill is secret.
Which brings us to the most interesting question of all: Are the members of Congress themselves, and their staffers, allowed to see the spec and talk about it openly? Are they allowed to consult experts for advice? Or are the full contents of this bill secret even from the lawmakers who are considering it?"
It would be comical if it wasn't so serious. Congress want to mandate a secret technology the details of which will only be made known to only those US citizens who will pay $10k to a private party, and only if they promise not to tell anybody what is in the technology or engage in public debate about it. You could call it hardlaw as opposed to hardware I suppose.
Mass spying means more errors
Jennifer Granick has been reinforcing the message of real security experts that mass surveillance leads to massive numbers of errors.
"If there aren't enough agents or translators to review all the false positives that random surveillance produces now, even before adding mass surveillance of U.S.-based communications to the mix, there's no reason to believe Judge Richard A. Posner's recent assertion that data mining from the innocent will enable detection of a terrorist plot collected from scattered, tiny bits of information.
Mass surveillance isn't just illegal, it's probably a bad idea. We need to ferret out real terrorists, not create a smoke screen of expensive and distracting false positives that they can hide behind. More information doesn't make us smarter. We need smarter information."
"If there aren't enough agents or translators to review all the false positives that random surveillance produces now, even before adding mass surveillance of U.S.-based communications to the mix, there's no reason to believe Judge Richard A. Posner's recent assertion that data mining from the innocent will enable detection of a terrorist plot collected from scattered, tiny bits of information.
Mass surveillance isn't just illegal, it's probably a bad idea. We need to ferret out real terrorists, not create a smoke screen of expensive and distracting false positives that they can hide behind. More information doesn't make us smarter. We need smarter information."
Yahoo and France
Michael Geist writes about the recent US court of appeal decision in the case Yahoo pursued against French anti racism groups.
"The initial French case concluded several years ago when a judge sided with the anti-racism groups and ordered Yahoo! to do what it reasonably could to ensure that French users could not access content that was unlawful in France. The judge was persuaded at that time that Yahoo! was capable of identifying when French users accessed its site (it provided targeted ads to such users) and that his order would be limited to Yahoo!' s activities in France.
To support his opinion, the judge commissioned a three-member expert panel, which included Vint Cerf, one of the Internet' s founders, to advise him on the technological capability of identifying the geographic location of Internet users. The panel responded that the technology at the time allowed for geographic identification at a 70 – 90 percent accuracy rate.
Yahoo!, supported by several U.S. civil liberties groups, was highly critical of the decision, arguing that complying with the order would force it to remove content that was protected under the First Amendment and was therefore lawful. Rather than appealing the French decision, however, the company chose to let the decision stand and to launch a lawsuit of its own in the U.S. courts instead, seeking an order that the French decision could not be enforced on its home turf...
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a U.S. appellate court, issued a 99-page split decision that asserted jurisdiction over the dispute but declined to provide Yahoo! with its much-desired order...
The Yahoo! France case resulted in nearly six years of litigation, numerous legal briefs, and much hand wringing from the Internet community. Despite its notoriety, it would appear that the courts remains as conflicted as ever as they seek to reconcile the challenges of law, borders and the Internet."
"The initial French case concluded several years ago when a judge sided with the anti-racism groups and ordered Yahoo! to do what it reasonably could to ensure that French users could not access content that was unlawful in France. The judge was persuaded at that time that Yahoo! was capable of identifying when French users accessed its site (it provided targeted ads to such users) and that his order would be limited to Yahoo!' s activities in France.
To support his opinion, the judge commissioned a three-member expert panel, which included Vint Cerf, one of the Internet' s founders, to advise him on the technological capability of identifying the geographic location of Internet users. The panel responded that the technology at the time allowed for geographic identification at a 70 – 90 percent accuracy rate.
Yahoo!, supported by several U.S. civil liberties groups, was highly critical of the decision, arguing that complying with the order would force it to remove content that was protected under the First Amendment and was therefore lawful. Rather than appealing the French decision, however, the company chose to let the decision stand and to launch a lawsuit of its own in the U.S. courts instead, seeking an order that the French decision could not be enforced on its home turf...
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a U.S. appellate court, issued a 99-page split decision that asserted jurisdiction over the dispute but declined to provide Yahoo! with its much-desired order...
The Yahoo! France case resulted in nearly six years of litigation, numerous legal briefs, and much hand wringing from the Internet community. Despite its notoriety, it would appear that the courts remains as conflicted as ever as they seek to reconcile the challenges of law, borders and the Internet."
EU Commission Consultation on Patents
The EU Commission have launched a public consultation on patent policy. It runs until the 31st of March this year and on the basis of the feedback they get the Commission will be organising a meeting in Brussels on the issue in the early summer.
The consultation says that
"The idea behind the patent system is that is should be used by business and research organisations to support innovation, growth and quality of life for the benefit of all in society."
And that it should have the following features:
"- clear substantive rules on what can and cannot be covered by patents, balancing the interests of right hodlers with the overall objectives of the patent system
- transparent, cost effective and accessible processes for obtaining a patent
- predictable, rapid and inexpensive resolution of disputes between right holders and other parties
- due regard for other public policy interests such as competition (anti-trust), ethics, environment, healthcare, access to information, so as to be effective and credible within society"
It goes on to ask if these are the key features or if there should be others included and how can the EU take into account the broader public interest in developing patent policy.
I can think of one question immediately: why should the system only be used by business and research organisations to support innovation etc.? What about individuals and civil society?
The consultation says that
"The idea behind the patent system is that is should be used by business and research organisations to support innovation, growth and quality of life for the benefit of all in society."
And that it should have the following features:
"- clear substantive rules on what can and cannot be covered by patents, balancing the interests of right hodlers with the overall objectives of the patent system
- transparent, cost effective and accessible processes for obtaining a patent
- predictable, rapid and inexpensive resolution of disputes between right holders and other parties
- due regard for other public policy interests such as competition (anti-trust), ethics, environment, healthcare, access to information, so as to be effective and credible within society"
It goes on to ask if these are the key features or if there should be others included and how can the EU take into account the broader public interest in developing patent policy.
I can think of one question immediately: why should the system only be used by business and research organisations to support innovation etc.? What about individuals and civil society?
Sunday, January 22, 2006
He shoots he scores
David Runciman has a terrific essay in the London Review of Books on Patrick Barclay's biography of Jose Mourinho.
"Mourinho has no intention of being a typical manager of a typical middle-ranking club. When he arrived at Chelsea, they were a team of underachieving superstars bankrolled by the world’s most affluent thirtysomething. Mourinho insisted they could do better and, after he had spent quite a lot more of Roman Abramovich’s money, do better they did. But Barclay has mistaken cause and effect. Chelsea didn’t do better because Mourinho said they would; rather, he said they would because he knew that as an underperforming team they were very likely to improve. Mourinho, who is an intelligent as well as a ruthless man, knows that the most important thing for a football manager’s reputation is being in the right place at the right time. It’s not that he does what it says on the tin so much as that he waits until he has a pretty shrewd idea of what is in the tin, then puts his own label on it...
As Barclay points out, the thing that most obviously sets him apart from many of his peers is that he is not himself a former professional player (he tried, but failed, not even managing to be picked for the Portuguese club side his father was managing). Rather than playing the game, Mourinho studied it, first at university, and then in various coaching and other capacities at a series of clubs in Portugal and Spain, including finally as Bobby Robson’s assistant at Barcelona...
he tends to rely less on his own experiences than on a series of carefully compiled technical dossiers that break the game down into a series of controllable variables, which he then does his best to control...
In truth, it seems likely that what Mourinho learned from his years of work experience was not what to do, but what not to do. The advantage the non-player has over the ex-player is that they can trust in the hard evidence of percentage football, without the memories and fantasies of their playing days getting in the way...
Even Barclay notices that Mourinho’s special gift is the remorseless attention he pays to detail, though he treats this as though it were some kind of magic trick in itself. For example, when UEFA introduced the idiotic ‘silver goal’ rule into European club competitions – which meant that if a team was leading at the end of the first period of extra-time, the second period would be abandoned and the match end – Mourinho instructed his Porto players to adapt their tactics to this new 15-minute format. What Barclay, quoting Marcello Lippi, considers remarkable is that Mourinho didn’t express a view about whether the silver goal was a good or a bad rule, he just got on with the business of trying to extract some advantage out of it. What, you wonder, does it say about the other coaches that this value-neutral approach is taken as a sign of inspiration...
Last summer he visited Israel, and gave an address to a joint conference of Israeli and Palestinian coaches in Tel Aviv. He told his audience: ‘When I have retired, when, in 13 more years I have finished with football, I can see myself 100 per cent involved in human actions. I have always thought about problems in the Middle East and Africa, not just about football.’ Barclay suggests a role perhaps at the United Nations, since Mourinho ‘has, after all, proved he can unite dressing-rooms’.
It is all so horribly familiar. I recently heard one of Tony Blair’s closest confidants tell an audience of students about the prime minister’s plans following his retirement: he wants to make a real contribution on the international stage, to bring his talents to bear on the big humanitarian issues, ‘like Bill Clinton, only more so’. Oh the fantasies these people have about the difference they can make."
"Mourinho has no intention of being a typical manager of a typical middle-ranking club. When he arrived at Chelsea, they were a team of underachieving superstars bankrolled by the world’s most affluent thirtysomething. Mourinho insisted they could do better and, after he had spent quite a lot more of Roman Abramovich’s money, do better they did. But Barclay has mistaken cause and effect. Chelsea didn’t do better because Mourinho said they would; rather, he said they would because he knew that as an underperforming team they were very likely to improve. Mourinho, who is an intelligent as well as a ruthless man, knows that the most important thing for a football manager’s reputation is being in the right place at the right time. It’s not that he does what it says on the tin so much as that he waits until he has a pretty shrewd idea of what is in the tin, then puts his own label on it...
As Barclay points out, the thing that most obviously sets him apart from many of his peers is that he is not himself a former professional player (he tried, but failed, not even managing to be picked for the Portuguese club side his father was managing). Rather than playing the game, Mourinho studied it, first at university, and then in various coaching and other capacities at a series of clubs in Portugal and Spain, including finally as Bobby Robson’s assistant at Barcelona...
he tends to rely less on his own experiences than on a series of carefully compiled technical dossiers that break the game down into a series of controllable variables, which he then does his best to control...
In truth, it seems likely that what Mourinho learned from his years of work experience was not what to do, but what not to do. The advantage the non-player has over the ex-player is that they can trust in the hard evidence of percentage football, without the memories and fantasies of their playing days getting in the way...
Even Barclay notices that Mourinho’s special gift is the remorseless attention he pays to detail, though he treats this as though it were some kind of magic trick in itself. For example, when UEFA introduced the idiotic ‘silver goal’ rule into European club competitions – which meant that if a team was leading at the end of the first period of extra-time, the second period would be abandoned and the match end – Mourinho instructed his Porto players to adapt their tactics to this new 15-minute format. What Barclay, quoting Marcello Lippi, considers remarkable is that Mourinho didn’t express a view about whether the silver goal was a good or a bad rule, he just got on with the business of trying to extract some advantage out of it. What, you wonder, does it say about the other coaches that this value-neutral approach is taken as a sign of inspiration...
Last summer he visited Israel, and gave an address to a joint conference of Israeli and Palestinian coaches in Tel Aviv. He told his audience: ‘When I have retired, when, in 13 more years I have finished with football, I can see myself 100 per cent involved in human actions. I have always thought about problems in the Middle East and Africa, not just about football.’ Barclay suggests a role perhaps at the United Nations, since Mourinho ‘has, after all, proved he can unite dressing-rooms’.
It is all so horribly familiar. I recently heard one of Tony Blair’s closest confidants tell an audience of students about the prime minister’s plans following his retirement: he wants to make a real contribution on the international stage, to bring his talents to bear on the big humanitarian issues, ‘like Bill Clinton, only more so’. Oh the fantasies these people have about the difference they can make."
Jimmy Wales clarifies press errors
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said the press reports about Wikipedia Germany being shut down by a German court are false and that the Wikimedia Foundation has had no contact with any Berlin courts.
The German version of Wikipedia is at http://de.wikipedia.org/
The http://www.wikipedia.de/ domain belongs to the German club of Wikipedia users.
The German Wikipedia club was briefly ordered by the court not to point people to the main German wikipedia site, the http://de.wikipedia.org/ but the main site was not affected.
Update: Andrés has further details at his blog, Technollama. As has Wikipedia itself.
The German version of Wikipedia is at http://de.wikipedia.org/
The http://www.wikipedia.de/ domain belongs to the German club of Wikipedia users.
The German Wikipedia club was briefly ordered by the court not to point people to the main German wikipedia site, the http://de.wikipedia.org/ but the main site was not affected.
Update: Andrés has further details at his blog, Technollama. As has Wikipedia itself.
Cheney defends domestic spying
Dick Cheney has been defending the domestic spying, the legality of which has been widely debated, saying it is essential in the war on terror. Yet members of the FBI are on record with the New York Times this week as saying that the data generated has led to them chasing a mass of false leads and interfering with their ability to do their real job.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Google, AOL, MSN, Yahoo! and the DOJ
SearchEngineWatch on the US Department for Justice attempts to get a picture of web surfing by demanding Google data:
"Getting a list of all searches in one week definitely would let US federal government dig deep into the long tail of porn searches. But then again, the sheer amount of data would be overwhelming. Do you know every variation of a term someone might use, that you're going to dig out of the hundreds of millions of searches you'd get? Oh, and be sure you filter out all the automated queries coming in from rank checking tools, while you're add it. They won't skew the data at all, nope.
Moreover, since the data is divorced from user info, you have no idea what searches are being done by children or not. In the end, you've asked for a lot of data that's not really going to help you estimate anything at all.
Far better would be to do some searches that you think children and teens are actually doing, such as by doing a survey of them. Then just go start searching on Google and the other search engines yourselves. See what actually comes up, especially when the filtering protection each service offers is enabled. That would give you plenty of data, plus it would be useful for everyone to have someone rigorously test the filtering systems that are offered. Serving subpoenas to get the data isn't necessary."
"Getting a list of all searches in one week definitely would let US federal government dig deep into the long tail of porn searches. But then again, the sheer amount of data would be overwhelming. Do you know every variation of a term someone might use, that you're going to dig out of the hundreds of millions of searches you'd get? Oh, and be sure you filter out all the automated queries coming in from rank checking tools, while you're add it. They won't skew the data at all, nope.
Moreover, since the data is divorced from user info, you have no idea what searches are being done by children or not. In the end, you've asked for a lot of data that's not really going to help you estimate anything at all.
Far better would be to do some searches that you think children and teens are actually doing, such as by doing a survey of them. Then just go start searching on Google and the other search engines yourselves. See what actually comes up, especially when the filtering protection each service offers is enabled. That would give you plenty of data, plus it would be useful for everyone to have someone rigorously test the filtering systems that are offered. Serving subpoenas to get the data isn't necessary."
Boiling frogs and drm
Wendy Seltzer says
"For years, the entertainment industry's DRM strategy has seemed to follow the old story about how to boil a frog: Start it going in a pan of cold water and gradually turn up the heat.
So it is with digital rights management: Start consumers off with restrictions only the techiest edge-cases among them will notice, then quietly increase control. Apple's iTunes, for example, has downgraded the behavior of already-purchased music files. One day you could burn a playlist 10 times, the next day only seven.
Once you've accepted that "your" music comes with only a set of pre-defined uses -- and not any personal use you can invent -- you might not notice as you lose the ability to do your own format-shifting. Just as fans once re-purchased music as it moved from 45 to LP to CD, perhaps they could be conditioned not to complain if they were made to re-license when they replaced computers and stereo components. Instead of selling CDs, then, marketers will then be able to slice up the "music experience" and license pieces back to the fans whose rights they've taken, ideally for more than the one-time profit on a CD."
So the Sony rootkit drm fiasco was good news, in that it woke some people up to the insidious nature of drm.
"For years, the entertainment industry's DRM strategy has seemed to follow the old story about how to boil a frog: Start it going in a pan of cold water and gradually turn up the heat.
So it is with digital rights management: Start consumers off with restrictions only the techiest edge-cases among them will notice, then quietly increase control. Apple's iTunes, for example, has downgraded the behavior of already-purchased music files. One day you could burn a playlist 10 times, the next day only seven.
Once you've accepted that "your" music comes with only a set of pre-defined uses -- and not any personal use you can invent -- you might not notice as you lose the ability to do your own format-shifting. Just as fans once re-purchased music as it moved from 45 to LP to CD, perhaps they could be conditioned not to complain if they were made to re-license when they replaced computers and stereo components. Instead of selling CDs, then, marketers will then be able to slice up the "music experience" and license pieces back to the fans whose rights they've taken, ideally for more than the one-time profit on a CD."
So the Sony rootkit drm fiasco was good news, in that it woke some people up to the insidious nature of drm.
Battelle on Google's reasons for fighting DOJ
John Battelle has his own view about the reasons Google have decided not to hand over data to the government.
"What's the Big Deal?
...in the Google v. DOJ case? Well, I've argued it's the slippery slope. But reading through the subpoena, it's clear that from where Google stands, there's something else at stake.
Remember this whole goat rodeo (on the size of indexes)? Remember how slippery both Yahoo and Google got when we tried to figure out exactly how many documents were in their indexes? Well, turns out, that's pretty much what the DOJ is trying to do as well. Hence, Google's defense on a "trade secrets" basis.
Apparently, the subpoena originally asked for a lot more than just a million addresses, as reported Thursday. From the motion the DOJ filed to force Google to comply with the subpoena:
"The subpoena asks Google to produce an electronic file containing '[a]ll URL's that rea available to be located through a query on your company's search engine as of July 31 2005."
and
"all queries that have been entered on your company' search engine between June 1, 2005 and July 31, 2005."
HELLO. You think Google is going to give that over? Me no think so.
This is why Google originally fought the order. The DOJ then narrowed its request to a random sample of one million URLs and agreed to not ask for personally identifying info on the search queries, but it still wants all search queries for a one week period. No way in hell Google would give that up, given the company's penchant for secrecy. Sure, the DOJ might guarantee that the data would not enter the public record, but, once in the DOJ's hands, it's out of Google's control.
So how to fight it? Well, standing up to the DOJ and getting major praise for doing so is a very smart strategy, in my book. As much as I'd love to believe Google is fighting this for heroic reasons, I'd wager that the data has more to do with it."
"What's the Big Deal?
...in the Google v. DOJ case? Well, I've argued it's the slippery slope. But reading through the subpoena, it's clear that from where Google stands, there's something else at stake.
Remember this whole goat rodeo (on the size of indexes)? Remember how slippery both Yahoo and Google got when we tried to figure out exactly how many documents were in their indexes? Well, turns out, that's pretty much what the DOJ is trying to do as well. Hence, Google's defense on a "trade secrets" basis.
Apparently, the subpoena originally asked for a lot more than just a million addresses, as reported Thursday. From the motion the DOJ filed to force Google to comply with the subpoena:
"The subpoena asks Google to produce an electronic file containing '[a]ll URL's that rea available to be located through a query on your company's search engine as of July 31 2005."
and
"all queries that have been entered on your company' search engine between June 1, 2005 and July 31, 2005."
HELLO. You think Google is going to give that over? Me no think so.
This is why Google originally fought the order. The DOJ then narrowed its request to a random sample of one million URLs and agreed to not ask for personally identifying info on the search queries, but it still wants all search queries for a one week period. No way in hell Google would give that up, given the company's penchant for secrecy. Sure, the DOJ might guarantee that the data would not enter the public record, but, once in the DOJ's hands, it's out of Google's control.
So how to fight it? Well, standing up to the DOJ and getting major praise for doing so is a very smart strategy, in my book. As much as I'd love to believe Google is fighting this for heroic reasons, I'd wager that the data has more to do with it."
The Purple Stapler
An inner city teacher on a purple stapler pushing her over the edge...
"There are hundreds of reasons to freak out at work each day. Those who haven't spent much time in a South Bronx high school may think I'm exaggerating or stereotyping. Unfortunately, I'm not. My school's administration is in shambles. The school district is grossly neglecting the civil rights of students with learning disabilities. I have 17-year-old students who are reading and writing at a second grade level. Not because they're dumb (talk with them for a minute and you'll hear their wit), but because they never received help for learning problems ranging from dyslexia to autism. They are among the few teenagers in their situation who haven't dropped out...
Before today, I had remained relatively calm in the classroom. I would weep at home, vent to friends over the phone, laugh when I meant to cry, and stay up worrying at night. But for six months I managed to wake up each morning, take the painfully slow train up to the Bronx, and put on my game face in front of my students. I knew it couldn't last.
So today marks the day that I finally went loca en la cabeza in front of my students. I didn't snap over something worthy, like drugs or dropouts or a student telling me to f--k off. No. I, Miss Dennis, snapped over a stapler. A miniature purple stapler. It was missing, and I was mad...
When I discovered that the stapler was missing, I completely shut down my class and demanded to know who had taken it. I was on the verge of tears. My students stared at me in shock.
"Are you okay, Miss Dennis?"
"What's wrong Miss?"
"I'll tell you what's wrong! Look around this classroom. Look at all these books and posters and videos and markers. Do you know who bought these? I did! With my own money! That's right! The Board of Ed gives me nothing! Nothing! That was my purple stapler, and no one has the right to take it! That's it! I'm taking everything home with me."
I began pulling down and piling up everything I had bought with my own money. It wasn't quite true that the Board of Ed had given me nothing. I received $150 to spend on classroom supplies. Other teachers got $200, but the genius Board of Ed CFO decided that special education teachers should get 25% less than all other teachers. (Way to go, CFO. Way to motivate teachers in your highest need area to keep working for you.) So I got $150, which I spent on 10 copies of The House on Mango Street. I paid for the other 15 copies of the book myself. I've spent an estimated $550 on classroom supplies already this semester, and many teachers I know have spent much more. Clearly, my rage was not simply about the missing purple stapler.
I finished piling up all of my belongings as my students continued to look on in disbelief. As soon as I calmed down, I pathetically tried to salvage a lesson out of my tantrum...
"Stop playin'. You not really gonna' take all that home. You take the 6 train. I seen you yesterday. You can't take all that home on the 6 train."
He had a point, and it finally dawned on me how ridiculous I was acting.
"Miss, are you crying over a stapler?"
"Not just any stapler Joseph! My lovely, miniature purple stapler!"
Laughter, finally...
I had my suspicions about who'd stolen the stapler, but I knew no one would snitch. In high school (whether in the wealthiest of suburbs or the grittiest of inner city neighborhoods), there's nothing worse than a snitch.
But amazingly, after class, one by one, every single student came back to my classroom to show me where the purple stapler had been stashed -- in a desk drawer in the back of the classroom. Apparently, whoever had planned on stealing it couldn't go through with it after my tantrum. Even the toughest, most seemingly uncaring of students came back to the classroom to make sure I was reunited with my beloved stapler. One of them helped me put back all of the books, posters, videos and markers.
"I knew you were just playin' us Miss."
Right. It was all a big plan. "
"There are hundreds of reasons to freak out at work each day. Those who haven't spent much time in a South Bronx high school may think I'm exaggerating or stereotyping. Unfortunately, I'm not. My school's administration is in shambles. The school district is grossly neglecting the civil rights of students with learning disabilities. I have 17-year-old students who are reading and writing at a second grade level. Not because they're dumb (talk with them for a minute and you'll hear their wit), but because they never received help for learning problems ranging from dyslexia to autism. They are among the few teenagers in their situation who haven't dropped out...
Before today, I had remained relatively calm in the classroom. I would weep at home, vent to friends over the phone, laugh when I meant to cry, and stay up worrying at night. But for six months I managed to wake up each morning, take the painfully slow train up to the Bronx, and put on my game face in front of my students. I knew it couldn't last.
So today marks the day that I finally went loca en la cabeza in front of my students. I didn't snap over something worthy, like drugs or dropouts or a student telling me to f--k off. No. I, Miss Dennis, snapped over a stapler. A miniature purple stapler. It was missing, and I was mad...
When I discovered that the stapler was missing, I completely shut down my class and demanded to know who had taken it. I was on the verge of tears. My students stared at me in shock.
"Are you okay, Miss Dennis?"
"What's wrong Miss?"
"I'll tell you what's wrong! Look around this classroom. Look at all these books and posters and videos and markers. Do you know who bought these? I did! With my own money! That's right! The Board of Ed gives me nothing! Nothing! That was my purple stapler, and no one has the right to take it! That's it! I'm taking everything home with me."
I began pulling down and piling up everything I had bought with my own money. It wasn't quite true that the Board of Ed had given me nothing. I received $150 to spend on classroom supplies. Other teachers got $200, but the genius Board of Ed CFO decided that special education teachers should get 25% less than all other teachers. (Way to go, CFO. Way to motivate teachers in your highest need area to keep working for you.) So I got $150, which I spent on 10 copies of The House on Mango Street. I paid for the other 15 copies of the book myself. I've spent an estimated $550 on classroom supplies already this semester, and many teachers I know have spent much more. Clearly, my rage was not simply about the missing purple stapler.
I finished piling up all of my belongings as my students continued to look on in disbelief. As soon as I calmed down, I pathetically tried to salvage a lesson out of my tantrum...
"Stop playin'. You not really gonna' take all that home. You take the 6 train. I seen you yesterday. You can't take all that home on the 6 train."
He had a point, and it finally dawned on me how ridiculous I was acting.
"Miss, are you crying over a stapler?"
"Not just any stapler Joseph! My lovely, miniature purple stapler!"
Laughter, finally...
I had my suspicions about who'd stolen the stapler, but I knew no one would snitch. In high school (whether in the wealthiest of suburbs or the grittiest of inner city neighborhoods), there's nothing worse than a snitch.
But amazingly, after class, one by one, every single student came back to my classroom to show me where the purple stapler had been stashed -- in a desk drawer in the back of the classroom. Apparently, whoever had planned on stealing it couldn't go through with it after my tantrum. Even the toughest, most seemingly uncaring of students came back to the classroom to make sure I was reunited with my beloved stapler. One of them helped me put back all of the books, posters, videos and markers.
"I knew you were just playin' us Miss."
Right. It was all a big plan. "
Alito and CAP
Samuel Alito, President Bush's US Supreme Court nominee once belonged to an organisation created to oppose the entry of women students to Princeton University.
" The animating force behind the alumni revolt at Princeton was the university's decision in January 1969 to admit women. Within four weeks, a conservative group calling itself the Alumni Committee to Involve Itself Now (ACTION) was founded. After its spirited attempt to block the admission of women failed, ACTION was succeeded in 1972 by CAP...
Alito's supporters have claimed that his declaration of membership in CAP 20 years ago is irrelevant to assessing whether he should be appointed to the Supreme Court. But would they say the same of a nominee to the Court who at age 35 had highlighted his membership in an organization that was on record as favoring the imposition of quotas limiting the number of Jews? And if a liberal nominee for the Supreme Court had belonged to a left-wing organization (e.g. Students for a Democratic Society) and touted it in an application for a job in the federal government, would it not be appropriate for the Senate to scrutinize this?
By the mid-1980s, having failed in its effort to restore the Princeton of old, CAP had become increasingly shrill...
Why, then, in late 1985 — 13 years after CAP was founded — would the mild-mannered Samuel Alito tout his membership in such an organization as he sought the job of Deputy Assistant Attorney General...
In all likelihood, Alito — who was by all accounts a marginal and inactive member of CAP — highlighted his membership in the organization for the most prosaic of reasons: he thought that it would signal to the movement conservatives who controlled appointments in the Justice Department that he shared their values and was a member of their network. Alito was not wrong, and in late 1985 — shortly after Prospect published what turned out to be its last issue — he received the promotion that helped place him on the path to the Supreme Court."
" The animating force behind the alumni revolt at Princeton was the university's decision in January 1969 to admit women. Within four weeks, a conservative group calling itself the Alumni Committee to Involve Itself Now (ACTION) was founded. After its spirited attempt to block the admission of women failed, ACTION was succeeded in 1972 by CAP...
Alito's supporters have claimed that his declaration of membership in CAP 20 years ago is irrelevant to assessing whether he should be appointed to the Supreme Court. But would they say the same of a nominee to the Court who at age 35 had highlighted his membership in an organization that was on record as favoring the imposition of quotas limiting the number of Jews? And if a liberal nominee for the Supreme Court had belonged to a left-wing organization (e.g. Students for a Democratic Society) and touted it in an application for a job in the federal government, would it not be appropriate for the Senate to scrutinize this?
By the mid-1980s, having failed in its effort to restore the Princeton of old, CAP had become increasingly shrill...
Why, then, in late 1985 — 13 years after CAP was founded — would the mild-mannered Samuel Alito tout his membership in such an organization as he sought the job of Deputy Assistant Attorney General...
In all likelihood, Alito — who was by all accounts a marginal and inactive member of CAP — highlighted his membership in the organization for the most prosaic of reasons: he thought that it would signal to the movement conservatives who controlled appointments in the Justice Department that he shared their values and was a member of their network. Alito was not wrong, and in late 1985 — shortly after Prospect published what turned out to be its last issue — he received the promotion that helped place him on the path to the Supreme Court."
Google refuse White House data request
The Guardian has a report on Google's refusal to hand over personal data to the White House. The Bush administration are trying to revive the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) which has been effectively thrown out of every court in the land. I'm rusty on the details (seems like an Internet lifetime since COPA was an issue) but as far as I remember COPA makes it a crime to send any communication that might be "harmful to minors" via the Web, unless the person sending the message has retricted access to minors by requiring credit card details.
This has been considered twice by the US Supreme Court and they decided that the law placed excessive restrictions on adult access to material they had a right to see on the Net. The Supreme Court sent it back down the lower courts for a trial on whether changes in technology should affect the constitutionality of the law.
The request for Google data appears to be a fishing expedition to collect and analyse patterns of Web use to see it that provides further evidence of the need for such a law. MSN and Yahoo! have handed over the required data without a challenge.
Update - The text of COPA reads:
SEC. 231. RESTRICTION OF ACCESS BY MINORS TO MATERIALS COMMERCIALLY DISTRIBUTED BY MEANS OF WORLD WIDE WEB THAT ARE HARMFUL TO MINORS.
"(a) REQUIREMENT TO RESTRICT ACCESS.—
"(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.—Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both...
"(c) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.—
"(1) DEFENSE.—It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the defendant, in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors—
"(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number;
"(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or
"(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology."
This has been considered twice by the US Supreme Court and they decided that the law placed excessive restrictions on adult access to material they had a right to see on the Net. The Supreme Court sent it back down the lower courts for a trial on whether changes in technology should affect the constitutionality of the law.
The request for Google data appears to be a fishing expedition to collect and analyse patterns of Web use to see it that provides further evidence of the need for such a law. MSN and Yahoo! have handed over the required data without a challenge.
Update - The text of COPA reads:
SEC. 231. RESTRICTION OF ACCESS BY MINORS TO MATERIALS COMMERCIALLY DISTRIBUTED BY MEANS OF WORLD WIDE WEB THAT ARE HARMFUL TO MINORS.
"(a) REQUIREMENT TO RESTRICT ACCESS.—
"(1) PROHIBITED CONDUCT.—Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both...
"(c) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.—
"(1) DEFENSE.—It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the defendant, in good faith, has restricted access by minors to material that is harmful to minors—
"(A) by requiring use of a credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult personal identification number;
"(B) by accepting a digital certificate that verifies age; or
"(C) by any other reasonable measures that are feasible under available technology."
DVD Jon registers deaacs domain
The leading new DVD copy protection system is AACS. Guess what? The Norwegian, who as a teenager, was responsible for publishing DeCSS, the code to bypass the old DVD copy protection, CSS, has registered the domain name deaacs.com. Not much there yet except the following:
"DeAACS.com
Estimated release: winter 2006/2007
Jon Lech Johansen"
"DeAACS.com
Estimated release: winter 2006/2007
Jon Lech Johansen"
Wikipedia Germany shut down by court order
Wikipedia Germany appears to have been shut down by a court order.
Rowe on baseball statistics
Jonathan Rowe has another classic case study illustrating what's wrong with some key actors' approach to intellectual property today.
"What is it about baseball statistics? The records of no other sport – of nothing period except maybe the stock market –have the same effect. Kids who can’t do long division can tell you Ted Williams’ batting average for every year in his career. Games based on baseball stats have become a teeming subculture. In the Fifties it was All Star Baseball, a board game with a circular card for each famous player. The cards were sectioned off according to that player’s statistics. You put one on a spinner, spun the metal arrow, and if it came to rest on the section marked “1”, it was a home run, and so on. Babe Ruth had a huge “1” section; Eddie Collins, the great second baseman, had a small one, but a large area for singles, which was “7” I think.
Then came a more sophisticated version that took pitching and fielding into account. My younger brother played an entire season one summer with his best friend. They kept batting and pitching records, the whole thing. Now’s there’s fantasy baseball, in which participants manage teams composed of players they choose from current major league rosters. The performance of the players tracks their daily performance in the ongoing season. Some 16 million people play in Fantasy Leagues. I’ve known writers who were avid fantasy ballers. Now it all could come to a crashing halt, thanks to the Major League Baseball monopoly.
Put simply, the majors are demanding a royalty from the fantasy leagues for the use of the statistics. Worse, it appears that they want to hoard the statistics and not grant a license at all. The details are more complicated, as they usually are; but that’s what it comes down to; and this raises a number of questions. For one thing, can someone really “own” statistics that simply are summations of historical facts? Baseball box scores are published in pretty much every newspaper in the land, and now on the web as well. They are handed around, discussed over coffee; when I went to summer camp my father sent me packets of box scores from the Boston Globe.
How do you “own” facts that enter the culture with such abandon? I know that the courts have made distinctions, and then distinctions within those. I’m talking common sense here. If you can own facts then you can own the truth about the past. You can control what people say and write about the past. That doesn’t sound like the kind of nation Madison and Jefferson had in mind when they gave the federal government the power to bestow copyrights and patents.
The majors argue that some fantasy leagues are commercial operations; and thus the use in question is commercial use. That’s a base hit for them. But it begs another question: namely, what are the intellectual property laws for in the first place? The Constitution says that copyrights and patents should be granted to “advance science and the useful arts.” The question to be asked of any claim of intellectual property, therefore, is whether it encourages such advancement, or retards it, commercially or otherwise.
In this case, the statistics in question have been produced for almost as long as Americans have played the game. The advancement has come from the uses people have made of them – the games, the compilations, the exhaustive and wonderfully obsessive analytics of a Bill James. The stats are the raw material; these are the innovations. To grant the major league’s monopoly claim would be to frustrate such creativity rather than advance it. It would bestow upon the professional leagues a pure form of what economists call “monopoly rent” – which is to say, a lot of money for nothing.
Myself, I’d be willing to grant a small royalty to the majors from commercial users, to help defray the ongoing expense of collecting the stats. It shouldn’t be necessary. The leagues gather the stats for their own purposes anyway, including daily publicity. So the “marginal cost”, as the economists say, of letting others use them, is pretty much zero. To the contrary there is gain. Kids who study the Baseball Encyclopedia, and Bill James, and play in the fantasy leagues, become lifelong fans. With the possible exception of bookmakers, no one follows the sport more closely than do fantasy leaguers.
The stupidity of cutting itself off from its own fans for a few extra dollars is, some would say, par for the major league course. (They must be listening to the same lawyers that advise the recording industry.) It’s not as though the majors are financially needy. There are problems regarding small market teams. But pro football solved that one and with a little less greed pro baseball could too.
But that’s their problem. For the rest of us, baseball statistics are a case study in why basic research and data should go into the public domain. When that domain remains abundant and free, invention and the arts flourish, as Madison and Jefferson intended. When basic knowledge – whether about the gene pool, the solar system, or baseball players – becomes fenced, then invention is stymied, for the same reason that tollbooths along the sidewalk would stymie business at the shops along that street.
The basic rule is, absent a compelling case to the contrary, let it be free."
There have been similar moves by the Premier League in the UK and the simple question, as Rowe says is: how can anyone own a collection of facts? "If you can own facts then you can own the truth about the past. You can control what people say and write about the past." That's not the kind of society I want my kids growing up in and it is a serious illustration of the kind of power that unbalanced intellectual property landscapes can bestow. In an information society the information laws, intellectual property prime amongst them, are the default rules of the road.
"What is it about baseball statistics? The records of no other sport – of nothing period except maybe the stock market –have the same effect. Kids who can’t do long division can tell you Ted Williams’ batting average for every year in his career. Games based on baseball stats have become a teeming subculture. In the Fifties it was All Star Baseball, a board game with a circular card for each famous player. The cards were sectioned off according to that player’s statistics. You put one on a spinner, spun the metal arrow, and if it came to rest on the section marked “1”, it was a home run, and so on. Babe Ruth had a huge “1” section; Eddie Collins, the great second baseman, had a small one, but a large area for singles, which was “7” I think.
Then came a more sophisticated version that took pitching and fielding into account. My younger brother played an entire season one summer with his best friend. They kept batting and pitching records, the whole thing. Now’s there’s fantasy baseball, in which participants manage teams composed of players they choose from current major league rosters. The performance of the players tracks their daily performance in the ongoing season. Some 16 million people play in Fantasy Leagues. I’ve known writers who were avid fantasy ballers. Now it all could come to a crashing halt, thanks to the Major League Baseball monopoly.
Put simply, the majors are demanding a royalty from the fantasy leagues for the use of the statistics. Worse, it appears that they want to hoard the statistics and not grant a license at all. The details are more complicated, as they usually are; but that’s what it comes down to; and this raises a number of questions. For one thing, can someone really “own” statistics that simply are summations of historical facts? Baseball box scores are published in pretty much every newspaper in the land, and now on the web as well. They are handed around, discussed over coffee; when I went to summer camp my father sent me packets of box scores from the Boston Globe.
How do you “own” facts that enter the culture with such abandon? I know that the courts have made distinctions, and then distinctions within those. I’m talking common sense here. If you can own facts then you can own the truth about the past. You can control what people say and write about the past. That doesn’t sound like the kind of nation Madison and Jefferson had in mind when they gave the federal government the power to bestow copyrights and patents.
The majors argue that some fantasy leagues are commercial operations; and thus the use in question is commercial use. That’s a base hit for them. But it begs another question: namely, what are the intellectual property laws for in the first place? The Constitution says that copyrights and patents should be granted to “advance science and the useful arts.” The question to be asked of any claim of intellectual property, therefore, is whether it encourages such advancement, or retards it, commercially or otherwise.
In this case, the statistics in question have been produced for almost as long as Americans have played the game. The advancement has come from the uses people have made of them – the games, the compilations, the exhaustive and wonderfully obsessive analytics of a Bill James. The stats are the raw material; these are the innovations. To grant the major league’s monopoly claim would be to frustrate such creativity rather than advance it. It would bestow upon the professional leagues a pure form of what economists call “monopoly rent” – which is to say, a lot of money for nothing.
Myself, I’d be willing to grant a small royalty to the majors from commercial users, to help defray the ongoing expense of collecting the stats. It shouldn’t be necessary. The leagues gather the stats for their own purposes anyway, including daily publicity. So the “marginal cost”, as the economists say, of letting others use them, is pretty much zero. To the contrary there is gain. Kids who study the Baseball Encyclopedia, and Bill James, and play in the fantasy leagues, become lifelong fans. With the possible exception of bookmakers, no one follows the sport more closely than do fantasy leaguers.
The stupidity of cutting itself off from its own fans for a few extra dollars is, some would say, par for the major league course. (They must be listening to the same lawyers that advise the recording industry.) It’s not as though the majors are financially needy. There are problems regarding small market teams. But pro football solved that one and with a little less greed pro baseball could too.
But that’s their problem. For the rest of us, baseball statistics are a case study in why basic research and data should go into the public domain. When that domain remains abundant and free, invention and the arts flourish, as Madison and Jefferson intended. When basic knowledge – whether about the gene pool, the solar system, or baseball players – becomes fenced, then invention is stymied, for the same reason that tollbooths along the sidewalk would stymie business at the shops along that street.
The basic rule is, absent a compelling case to the contrary, let it be free."
There have been similar moves by the Premier League in the UK and the simple question, as Rowe says is: how can anyone own a collection of facts? "If you can own facts then you can own the truth about the past. You can control what people say and write about the past." That's not the kind of society I want my kids growing up in and it is a serious illustration of the kind of power that unbalanced intellectual property landscapes can bestow. In an information society the information laws, intellectual property prime amongst them, are the default rules of the road.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)