The UK Treasury has announced a review of intellectual property.
"At the Enterprise Conference on 2 December 2005, the Chancellor announced that, as part of the Pre-Budget Report 2005 package, he was asking Andrew Gowers to lead an Independent Review to examine the UK’s intellectual property framework, reporting to the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in Autumn 2006."
Under "scope" the final bullet point says
"The review will provide an analysis of the performance of the UK IP system, including inter alia...
whether the current technical and legal IP infringement framework reflects the digital environment, and whether provisions for ‘fair use’ by citizens are reasonable."
Which is interesting because we don't have "fair use" in the UK. We have "fair dealing" which though similar is not the same. "Fair use" in the US, for example, allows the making of copies of CDs for personal use, whereas "fair dealing" in the UK does not.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Friday, December 02, 2005
Dutch e-citizen charter
William Heath thinks the Dutch 10 point e-Citizen Charter might be what we need for Europe. I'll have to come back to this as other things are pressing but it raises all kinds of interesting questions.
Turning the Net into cable TV
David Bollier advises:
"Beware the privateers! They whisper sweetly of fantastic new services they will provide – a faster Internet, better quality, even medical alerts for consumers….and blah-de-blah. Their unspoken agenda, however, is to convert the open Internet commons into a pay-for-performance marketplace. The companies who control the “pipes” of the Internet – i.e., the telephone and cable TV companies – are starting to make their move.
It’s imperative that we pay close attention to these plans – and register our objections to Congress and the companies themselves."
"Beware the privateers! They whisper sweetly of fantastic new services they will provide – a faster Internet, better quality, even medical alerts for consumers….and blah-de-blah. Their unspoken agenda, however, is to convert the open Internet commons into a pay-for-performance marketplace. The companies who control the “pipes” of the Internet – i.e., the telephone and cable TV companies – are starting to make their move.
It’s imperative that we pay close attention to these plans – and register our objections to Congress and the companies themselves."
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Copyright dispute over book cover
Thomas Friedman and his publisher, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, have been sued over the cover on his latest book, The World is Flat. (Interestingly enough I see Amazon UK have "No Image Available" for the cover at the moment).
Freidman used an image from a poster he'd bought many years ago, of a painting done by artist Ed Miracle, showing boats sailing over the edge of the world, which featured the caption "I told you so." His publisher had duly licenced the right to use the image from the poster company. The poster company, unfortunately didn't hold the copyright in the image. They only had a licence to sell about a thousand posters and that licence expired in 1996.
The author said: "We didn't try to cheat anybody. We did it [purchased the rights] through normal channels. We thought this was all legal, kosher, and right. I feel bad that this happened, and I couldn't feel more bad for him [Miracle]."
The artist's agent, Rose von Perbandt, said "Is there no one in the press that sees the irony of a book on globalization—whose author stresses the need to protect against piracy and strengthen intellectual property protection—that is infringing the copyrights of the artist whose work was used on the cover?"
It's a fair point, which goes to show that even those with an interest in strong intellectual property rights, including Pulitzer Prize winning journalists/authors, can sometimes accidently get entangled in the complexity of the current IP landscape.
Freidman used an image from a poster he'd bought many years ago, of a painting done by artist Ed Miracle, showing boats sailing over the edge of the world, which featured the caption "I told you so." His publisher had duly licenced the right to use the image from the poster company. The poster company, unfortunately didn't hold the copyright in the image. They only had a licence to sell about a thousand posters and that licence expired in 1996.
The author said: "We didn't try to cheat anybody. We did it [purchased the rights] through normal channels. We thought this was all legal, kosher, and right. I feel bad that this happened, and I couldn't feel more bad for him [Miracle]."
The artist's agent, Rose von Perbandt, said "Is there no one in the press that sees the irony of a book on globalization—whose author stresses the need to protect against piracy and strengthen intellectual property protection—that is infringing the copyrights of the artist whose work was used on the cover?"
It's a fair point, which goes to show that even those with an interest in strong intellectual property rights, including Pulitzer Prize winning journalists/authors, can sometimes accidently get entangled in the complexity of the current IP landscape.
IPPR report
The Institute for Public Policy Research has just released a report "Markets in the Online Public Sphere." As the author of the report Will Davies puts it the report covers "the politics and economics of online information, and why policy-makers find it so hard to accertain the 'public interest' in this confusing terrain."
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
President Bush disaster
I don't think Rupert Murdoch really would have wanted this image to come across the way it does...
Diebold ordered to supply source code
A federal judge has ordered Diebold to hand over the source code on its electronic voting machines to North Carolina state officials. From the EFF:
"a North Carolina judge today told Diebold Election Systems that the e-voting company must comply with tough North Carolina election law and dismissed the company's case seeking broad exemptions from the law.
EFF intervened in the case earlier this month, after Diebold obtained a broad temporary restraining order that allowed it to evade key transparency requirements without criminal or civil liability. The law requires escrow of the source code for all voting systems to be certified in the state and identification of programmers. In today's hearing, the judge told Diebold if it wanted to continue in the bidding process for certified election systems in the state, it must follow the law and if it failed to do so, it would face liability...
Diebold could appeal the ruling, go forward with its bid, or withdraw from the process. However, Diebold told the court that it would likely withdraw the bid if the company did not have liability protection.
North Carolina experienced one of the most serious malfunctions of e-voting systems in the 2004 presidential election when over 4,500 ballots were lost in a voting system provided by Diebold competitor UniLect Corp. The new transparency and integrity provisions of the North Carolina election law were passed in response to this and other documented malfunctions that have occurred across the country."
It is very good news that a judge should enforce transparency requirements on a voting machine vendor. Given that Diebold have explicitly now threatened to withdraw from the bidding process rather than hand over theie source code, it will be interesting to watch to see if they follow through on that. Transparency is fundamental to the democratic process and no amount of technology or commerce should be allowed to undermine that.
"a North Carolina judge today told Diebold Election Systems that the e-voting company must comply with tough North Carolina election law and dismissed the company's case seeking broad exemptions from the law.
EFF intervened in the case earlier this month, after Diebold obtained a broad temporary restraining order that allowed it to evade key transparency requirements without criminal or civil liability. The law requires escrow of the source code for all voting systems to be certified in the state and identification of programmers. In today's hearing, the judge told Diebold if it wanted to continue in the bidding process for certified election systems in the state, it must follow the law and if it failed to do so, it would face liability...
Diebold could appeal the ruling, go forward with its bid, or withdraw from the process. However, Diebold told the court that it would likely withdraw the bid if the company did not have liability protection.
North Carolina experienced one of the most serious malfunctions of e-voting systems in the 2004 presidential election when over 4,500 ballots were lost in a voting system provided by Diebold competitor UniLect Corp. The new transparency and integrity provisions of the North Carolina election law were passed in response to this and other documented malfunctions that have occurred across the country."
It is very good news that a judge should enforce transparency requirements on a voting machine vendor. Given that Diebold have explicitly now threatened to withdraw from the bidding process rather than hand over theie source code, it will be interesting to watch to see if they follow through on that. Transparency is fundamental to the democratic process and no amount of technology or commerce should be allowed to undermine that.
New UK Biometric Centre
The Home Office are planning to set up a new "Biometric Centre of Expertise" (who comes up with these names?).
Their Science and Innovation Strategy 2005-08 includes the oft repeated, wildly ambitious and completely fallacious claim that "The National Identity Card scheme will be a powerful tool to tackle identity theft, illegal working, terrorism and organised crime." It follows up later in the same paragraph (p14, para on "Identification") with "In recognition of its importance the Home Office is creating a Biometric Centre of Expertise within HOSDB." HOSDB stands for "Home Office Scientific Development Branch."
Their Science and Innovation Strategy 2005-08 includes the oft repeated, wildly ambitious and completely fallacious claim that "The National Identity Card scheme will be a powerful tool to tackle identity theft, illegal working, terrorism and organised crime." It follows up later in the same paragraph (p14, para on "Identification") with "In recognition of its importance the Home Office is creating a Biometric Centre of Expertise within HOSDB." HOSDB stands for "Home Office Scientific Development Branch."
Public services and ICT report
The Work Foundation has published its final report on Public Services and ICT.
Nothing earth shattering. Basically it says -
ICT could transform public services but only if objectives are clear and the right ICT is used,
Staff at all levels are struggling to make ICT effective,
Leaders must be responsible for realising potential and managing risks of ICT,
"Customers must be segmented" (sounds painful but this is just an attempt at marketing-speak),
The ICT with the most attractive bells and whistles is not necessarily the best for the job,
Improve supply chain management,
Listen to the users when building ICT systems,
ICT has an impact on privacy.
Nothing earth shattering. Basically it says -
ICT could transform public services but only if objectives are clear and the right ICT is used,
Staff at all levels are struggling to make ICT effective,
Leaders must be responsible for realising potential and managing risks of ICT,
"Customers must be segmented" (sounds painful but this is just an attempt at marketing-speak),
The ICT with the most attractive bells and whistles is not necessarily the best for the job,
Improve supply chain management,
Listen to the users when building ICT systems,
ICT has an impact on privacy.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Kazaa get reprieve in Australia
P2P Net have the transcript of the hearing in an Australian court where Sharman Networks, owners of Kazaa, were given an extension to the deadline to implement filters. It seems the music industry's lawyers failed to attend a court ordered meeting about how the technicalities of the filtering were supposed to work but the judge does try not to let that cloud his judgement, even though he's angry about it.
The judge said:
"I thought it was discourteous in the extreme for your clients to notify that they wouldn't attend by an email sent at 8 minutes to 6 on the Friday night for an appointment that had been arranged for a long time which was due to start at 9 am on Monday. It is just not acceptable for solicitors to behave in that way to a Registrar of the court...
I just want to express as forcibly as I can, when I make directions for attendance before the Registrar I expect practitioners to treat the Registrar with the normal courtesies we would expect from each other."
The technical Registrar in a report to the court said
"Whilst the applicants had displayed co-operation in attending the first conclave and their technical representatives demonstrated good faith in contributing to the development of the protocol, it was unfortunate that this co-operation did not extend to their attendance at the resumed conclave."
So they engaged in the process to begin with but then pulled out because they reckoned the Kazaa folks were not taking it seriously, even though the court appointed officer felt that they were.
Kim Weatherall called the judge's decision on Kazaa "brave" when it was published primarily because of the huge amount of work she predicted would come the court's way in supervising this kind of process. This kind of spat was predictable though I'm not sure "brave" was the right descriptor. The transcript is quite entertaining in places with the judge suggesting to the music industry lawyer that they hadn't been too clever in their tactics - if they'd gone to the meeting and put it clearly on the record that Kazaa were not taking the filtering seriously and got the REgistrar to accept that, then Kazaa could have been in serious difficulties coming back before the court asking for a stay on the injunction. Instead they took their bat and walked away, insulting the court appointed registrar into the bargin. Interestingly enough the judge goes on to criticise both sides for their posturing.
It's well worth a read if you follow the politics and legalities of p2p file sharing.
The judge said:
"I thought it was discourteous in the extreme for your clients to notify that they wouldn't attend by an email sent at 8 minutes to 6 on the Friday night for an appointment that had been arranged for a long time which was due to start at 9 am on Monday. It is just not acceptable for solicitors to behave in that way to a Registrar of the court...
I just want to express as forcibly as I can, when I make directions for attendance before the Registrar I expect practitioners to treat the Registrar with the normal courtesies we would expect from each other."
The technical Registrar in a report to the court said
"Whilst the applicants had displayed co-operation in attending the first conclave and their technical representatives demonstrated good faith in contributing to the development of the protocol, it was unfortunate that this co-operation did not extend to their attendance at the resumed conclave."
So they engaged in the process to begin with but then pulled out because they reckoned the Kazaa folks were not taking it seriously, even though the court appointed officer felt that they were.
Kim Weatherall called the judge's decision on Kazaa "brave" when it was published primarily because of the huge amount of work she predicted would come the court's way in supervising this kind of process. This kind of spat was predictable though I'm not sure "brave" was the right descriptor. The transcript is quite entertaining in places with the judge suggesting to the music industry lawyer that they hadn't been too clever in their tactics - if they'd gone to the meeting and put it clearly on the record that Kazaa were not taking the filtering seriously and got the REgistrar to accept that, then Kazaa could have been in serious difficulties coming back before the court asking for a stay on the injunction. Instead they took their bat and walked away, insulting the court appointed registrar into the bargin. Interestingly enough the judge goes on to criticise both sides for their posturing.
It's well worth a read if you follow the politics and legalities of p2p file sharing.
PNR decision a shock?
EU law blog characterises the ECJ Advocate General's decision on the transfer of EU airline passenger data to the US authorites as a shock. I'm not sure it is a shock necessarily, given the amount of behind the scenes politicking that's gone on with this, but it's certainly worth noting that the specific reasons why he concludes as he does, that the European Court of Justice should annul the Council's and the Commission's decisions on the handover, are different to the reasons put forward by the European Parliament, which made the complaint.
"First, he considers that Commission Decision 2004/535/EC on the adequate protection of personal data contained in the Passenger Name Record of air passengers transferred to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection was wrongly based on Directive 95/46/EC because the processing of the data put at the disposal of the United States concerned public security and the activities of the state in relation to criminal law and the fight against terrorism. Processing data for such purposes is outside the scope of the protection afforded by Directive 95/46/EC according to its Article 3 § 2. As the Commission could not lawfully adopt Decision 2004/535/EC on the basis of article 25 § 6 of Directive 95/46/EC, the Advocate General recommends that it should be annulled by the Court.
So, the reasons the Advocate General puts forward are very different from those submitted by the European Parliament which brought the action.
Second, the Advocate General considered that Article 95 EC was not the proper basis for adopting Council Decision 2004/496/EC of May 17th, 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and it too should be annulled by the Court. The reasoning was the same. The processing of the data pursuant to the agreement between the EC and the USA concerned the fight against terrorism and serious crime whereas Article 95 EC concerned the functioning of the internal market of the EC."
Basically the decision says nothing about whether the Commission and Council should be allowed to mandate the passing of personal data to the US authorities, only that they used the wrong procedure. The Parliament were partly prompted to make the complaint in the first place because of anger over what they believed to have been assurances by the relevant EU commissioner, which they then felt he deliberately reneged on in confidential discussions and agreements with the US.
Essentially then, the EU Council of Governments and the EU Commission used the wrong procedure to mandate the handing over of large quantities of personal data to a foreign government. The EU Parliament then cited the wrong procedure in its complaint that a fundamental principle of European Union citizen data protection was being undermined. The mainstream press would probably paint this as another story of bureaucratic incompetence. As a great believer in the ubiquity of the cock of theory of history, I'd find it easy to be sold on that but there is another story here too. The making of reactive, superficial, high level political decisions about fundamental liberties and the pressurising of officials to "find a way" to get it done. The way is generally attaching it to some procedural process and with any luck it will slip through without getting subject to the kind of thorough judicial review the PNR decision attracted.
The Council and the Commission will now lean on officials to find another way...
"First, he considers that Commission Decision 2004/535/EC on the adequate protection of personal data contained in the Passenger Name Record of air passengers transferred to the United States Bureau of Customs and Border Protection was wrongly based on Directive 95/46/EC because the processing of the data put at the disposal of the United States concerned public security and the activities of the state in relation to criminal law and the fight against terrorism. Processing data for such purposes is outside the scope of the protection afforded by Directive 95/46/EC according to its Article 3 § 2. As the Commission could not lawfully adopt Decision 2004/535/EC on the basis of article 25 § 6 of Directive 95/46/EC, the Advocate General recommends that it should be annulled by the Court.
So, the reasons the Advocate General puts forward are very different from those submitted by the European Parliament which brought the action.
Second, the Advocate General considered that Article 95 EC was not the proper basis for adopting Council Decision 2004/496/EC of May 17th, 2004 on the conclusion of an Agreement between the European Community and the United States of America on the processing and transfer of PNR data by Air Carriers to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and it too should be annulled by the Court. The reasoning was the same. The processing of the data pursuant to the agreement between the EC and the USA concerned the fight against terrorism and serious crime whereas Article 95 EC concerned the functioning of the internal market of the EC."
Basically the decision says nothing about whether the Commission and Council should be allowed to mandate the passing of personal data to the US authorities, only that they used the wrong procedure. The Parliament were partly prompted to make the complaint in the first place because of anger over what they believed to have been assurances by the relevant EU commissioner, which they then felt he deliberately reneged on in confidential discussions and agreements with the US.
Essentially then, the EU Council of Governments and the EU Commission used the wrong procedure to mandate the handing over of large quantities of personal data to a foreign government. The EU Parliament then cited the wrong procedure in its complaint that a fundamental principle of European Union citizen data protection was being undermined. The mainstream press would probably paint this as another story of bureaucratic incompetence. As a great believer in the ubiquity of the cock of theory of history, I'd find it easy to be sold on that but there is another story here too. The making of reactive, superficial, high level political decisions about fundamental liberties and the pressurising of officials to "find a way" to get it done. The way is generally attaching it to some procedural process and with any luck it will slip through without getting subject to the kind of thorough judicial review the PNR decision attracted.
The Council and the Commission will now lean on officials to find another way...
Friday, November 25, 2005
Firefox Scholar
Firefox scholar.
"SmartFox will enable users, with a single click, to grab a citation to a book, journal article, archival document, or museum object and store it in their browser. Researchers will then be able to take notes on the reference, link that reference to others, and organize both the metadata and annotations in ways that will greatly enhance the usefulness of, and the great investment of time and money in, the electronic collections of museums and libraries. All of the information SmartFox gathers and the researcher creates will be stored on the client's computer, not the institution's server (unlike commercial products like Amazon's toolbar), and will be fully searchable. The Web browser, the premier platform for research now and in the future, will achieve the kind of functionality that the users of libraries and museums would expect in an age of exponentially increasing digitization of their holdings."
Good idea.
"SmartFox will enable users, with a single click, to grab a citation to a book, journal article, archival document, or museum object and store it in their browser. Researchers will then be able to take notes on the reference, link that reference to others, and organize both the metadata and annotations in ways that will greatly enhance the usefulness of, and the great investment of time and money in, the electronic collections of museums and libraries. All of the information SmartFox gathers and the researcher creates will be stored on the client's computer, not the institution's server (unlike commercial products like Amazon's toolbar), and will be fully searchable. The Web browser, the premier platform for research now and in the future, will achieve the kind of functionality that the users of libraries and museums would expect in an age of exponentially increasing digitization of their holdings."
Good idea.
The Patent Cold War
Quentin Stafford-Fraser on the Patent Cold War. Good stuff:
"The current patent system is something of a farce. Almost everybody involved in it knows this, but it's a game we all have to keep playing because nobody can afford to be the first one to stop...
And so we have the first major problem. The acquisition of patents, instead of being a means to an end, has become an end in itself...
And so this is problem number two: Lots of people have the ideas, but the wrong people are getting most of the patents...
And so we come to a very clichéd but nonetheless important problem number three: In the end, whether a patent is worth anything depends chiefly on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers. Even if you rightfully have the patent, you may not win...
And so we come to my last major concern, that a lot of the ideas for which patents are granted probably aren't very novel. So the system isn't really stimulating technological development by granting people 20-year monopolies on them..."
"The current patent system is something of a farce. Almost everybody involved in it knows this, but it's a game we all have to keep playing because nobody can afford to be the first one to stop...
And so we have the first major problem. The acquisition of patents, instead of being a means to an end, has become an end in itself...
And so this is problem number two: Lots of people have the ideas, but the wrong people are getting most of the patents...
And so we come to a very clichéd but nonetheless important problem number three: In the end, whether a patent is worth anything depends chiefly on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers. Even if you rightfully have the patent, you may not win...
And so we come to my last major concern, that a lot of the ideas for which patents are granted probably aren't very novel. So the system isn't really stimulating technological development by granting people 20-year monopolies on them..."
Verisign on Net CALEA compliance
Susan Crawford castigates Versign for their declaration that the FCC have not gone far enough in demanding that digital networks be architected for easy law enforcement interception.
"Within the last ten days or so, the key vendor of CALEA compliance services (VeriSign) has taken a very stern tone [pdf] with the FCC, saying that the Commission has read CALEA far too narrowly. VeriSign wants any SIP-using service to be part of the program, and suggests that interconnection with the traditional telephone network shouldn't necessarily be the standard for compliance. Translation: any possible multimedia application (whether connected to the phone network or not) and all connections to the internet should be designed in advance so as to be easily tappable by law enforcement.
(What's a SIP-based service? It's any service using the Session Initiation Protocol, an IETF signaling protocol that can be used in connection with any multimedia or voice or gaming application. GoogleTalk will use SIP; MSN Messenger already does; a host of VoIP applications already do. It's a very broadly used peer-to-peer protocol.)
VeriSign is also arguing that the rest of the world is moving smoothly along the vendor-assisted interception path, and that "the only impediment to implementation domestically principally lies in the Commission's actions" in the CALEA proceeding. We are ready, sayeth VeriSign (describing itself as a member of the "entrepreneurial and innovative global lawful interception industry") to provide these compliance services at minimal cost, but the Commission is getting in the way...
What's extraordinary about all this firmness on the part of the sole listener (DOJ) and the key vendor (VeriSign) is that the FCC has reached very far indeed to do their bidding already. By virtue of a less-than-weak reading of CALEA (which doesn't apply to "information services"), the Commission has gotten up the nerve to act like Congress and proclaim that a huge range of actors have to be CALEA compliant within 18 months, without saying what compliance means. Non-compliant firms will be subject to fines of $10,000 a day. So entities have to start complying without knowing what to do, and they won't even know whether they're covered -- because the FCC is sometimes flip about whether they are. Enormous, arbitrary, capricious, and aggressive confusion is in the air.
It's all pretty astonishing and pretty abusive...
But if you listen to VeriSign, we're all being silly, the world has moved on, and we should just shape up and get with the program. I feel sorry for the well-meaning professional staff at the Commission. They're under tremendous pressure."
"Within the last ten days or so, the key vendor of CALEA compliance services (VeriSign) has taken a very stern tone [pdf] with the FCC, saying that the Commission has read CALEA far too narrowly. VeriSign wants any SIP-using service to be part of the program, and suggests that interconnection with the traditional telephone network shouldn't necessarily be the standard for compliance. Translation: any possible multimedia application (whether connected to the phone network or not) and all connections to the internet should be designed in advance so as to be easily tappable by law enforcement.
(What's a SIP-based service? It's any service using the Session Initiation Protocol, an IETF signaling protocol that can be used in connection with any multimedia or voice or gaming application. GoogleTalk will use SIP; MSN Messenger already does; a host of VoIP applications already do. It's a very broadly used peer-to-peer protocol.)
VeriSign is also arguing that the rest of the world is moving smoothly along the vendor-assisted interception path, and that "the only impediment to implementation domestically principally lies in the Commission's actions" in the CALEA proceeding. We are ready, sayeth VeriSign (describing itself as a member of the "entrepreneurial and innovative global lawful interception industry") to provide these compliance services at minimal cost, but the Commission is getting in the way...
What's extraordinary about all this firmness on the part of the sole listener (DOJ) and the key vendor (VeriSign) is that the FCC has reached very far indeed to do their bidding already. By virtue of a less-than-weak reading of CALEA (which doesn't apply to "information services"), the Commission has gotten up the nerve to act like Congress and proclaim that a huge range of actors have to be CALEA compliant within 18 months, without saying what compliance means. Non-compliant firms will be subject to fines of $10,000 a day. So entities have to start complying without knowing what to do, and they won't even know whether they're covered -- because the FCC is sometimes flip about whether they are. Enormous, arbitrary, capricious, and aggressive confusion is in the air.
It's all pretty astonishing and pretty abusive...
But if you listen to VeriSign, we're all being silly, the world has moved on, and we should just shape up and get with the program. I feel sorry for the well-meaning professional staff at the Commission. They're under tremendous pressure."
WIPO meeting on copyright in education
IPKat also has a note about a WIPO meeting on copyright in education in the knowledge society.
"The digital environment presents enormous opportunities and challenges in terms of delivering educational materials in a sustainable manner, said Mrs. Rita Hayes, WIPO Deputy Director General in charge of copyright issues. "Today’s meeting was an excellent opportunity to look at the dissemination of teaching materials through balanced and effective copyright systems that meet the needs of all stakeholders; authors, publishers, libraries and educational services"
All stakeholders? Hmmm let's look at that list again - "authors, publishers, libraries and educational services." Nope I didn't miss them. Where were the readers or students?
But "delivering educational materials in a sustainable manner" is a nice idea, since sustainability, by definition, means protecting and cultivating and rich open-system (and I mean that in the purest thermodynamic sense, of course) source of open and renewable raw materials. Are WIPO promoting open access?
"The digital environment presents enormous opportunities and challenges in terms of delivering educational materials in a sustainable manner, said Mrs. Rita Hayes, WIPO Deputy Director General in charge of copyright issues. "Today’s meeting was an excellent opportunity to look at the dissemination of teaching materials through balanced and effective copyright systems that meet the needs of all stakeholders; authors, publishers, libraries and educational services"
All stakeholders? Hmmm let's look at that list again - "authors, publishers, libraries and educational services." Nope I didn't miss them. Where were the readers or students?
But "delivering educational materials in a sustainable manner" is a nice idea, since sustainability, by definition, means protecting and cultivating and rich open-system (and I mean that in the purest thermodynamic sense, of course) source of open and renewable raw materials. Are WIPO promoting open access?
Laws of physics muck up a patent application
I learn from IPKat that there's a novel decision from the Patent appeal court, where the judge threw out an appeal against the dismissal of a patent application. He reckoned that it was reasonable for the patent examiner to hold that the proposed invention was not only obvious but it broke the laws of physics, or more specifically the law of conservation of energy (also widely known by engineers as the first law of thermodynamics).
So the invention was obvious despite the fact that it breached a fundamental law of nature, which presumably means that that fundamental law is not obvious? Being the scientific stick in the mud that I am, I'd say that is more of a reflection of the basic lack of scientific understanding rather than that the first law of thermodynamics is something less than obvious. Which in turn leads to the question of what actually is obvious? But that strays into the realm of philosophy which goes beyond the boundaries of my scientific, technical, commercial and legal training...
No that's not good enough. Even young children know you can't generate energy out of nothing, so if it is obvious to them why isn't it obvious to the legal system and society more generally? Just another example of our ability to believe in things which are simple, obvious and wrong, I guess.
So the invention was obvious despite the fact that it breached a fundamental law of nature, which presumably means that that fundamental law is not obvious? Being the scientific stick in the mud that I am, I'd say that is more of a reflection of the basic lack of scientific understanding rather than that the first law of thermodynamics is something less than obvious. Which in turn leads to the question of what actually is obvious? But that strays into the realm of philosophy which goes beyond the boundaries of my scientific, technical, commercial and legal training...
No that's not good enough. Even young children know you can't generate energy out of nothing, so if it is obvious to them why isn't it obvious to the legal system and society more generally? Just another example of our ability to believe in things which are simple, obvious and wrong, I guess.
ID cards in historical perspective
Jon Agar of Cambridge University has produced a paper on Identity cards in Britain: past experience and policy implications. I've just had time to scan the executive summary but it looks well worth a read. The paper looks briefly at the two previous ID card systems in the UK in the 20th century and idenitfies some features which could inform the debate on the government's planned system. Extract from the executive summary:
"The first national register (1915-1919), and accompanying identity card, was a failure, and the second (1939-1952) a partial success. The success of the second system was secured by analysing the causes of the failure of the first.
Universal registration systems have repeatedly been proposed as solutions to short-lived moral panics. But there is little evidence that national registers effectively resolve such panics.
Public indifference or hostility to identity cards was managed by building 'parasitic vitality' into the second experience. In particular, the system of national registration was intimately connected to the system of food rationing. Without similar 'parasitic vitality', contemporary proposals can be expected to struggle to win acceptance.
However, such interconnection encourages the phenomenon of 'function creep': eventually the pattern of disclosure and use of personal information is markedly different from that originally declared."
He goes on to say in the body of the report:
" the administrative operation of - and public response to - the historical card systems reveal features that should make all parties in the contemporary debate pause for thought. For example, the relative technological simplicity of the old card systems made a considerable contribution to their effectiveness: the simplistic equation of technological sophistication with effectiveness should be resisted."
As I say to my students, we should look to use the best available technology, including pencils and paper.
"The first national register (1915-1919), and accompanying identity card, was a failure, and the second (1939-1952) a partial success. The success of the second system was secured by analysing the causes of the failure of the first.
Universal registration systems have repeatedly been proposed as solutions to short-lived moral panics. But there is little evidence that national registers effectively resolve such panics.
Public indifference or hostility to identity cards was managed by building 'parasitic vitality' into the second experience. In particular, the system of national registration was intimately connected to the system of food rationing. Without similar 'parasitic vitality', contemporary proposals can be expected to struggle to win acceptance.
However, such interconnection encourages the phenomenon of 'function creep': eventually the pattern of disclosure and use of personal information is markedly different from that originally declared."
He goes on to say in the body of the report:
" the administrative operation of - and public response to - the historical card systems reveal features that should make all parties in the contemporary debate pause for thought. For example, the relative technological simplicity of the old card systems made a considerable contribution to their effectiveness: the simplistic equation of technological sophistication with effectiveness should be resisted."
As I say to my students, we should look to use the best available technology, including pencils and paper.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
LSE Prof on Government misrepresentation on ID cards
Professor Ian Angell of the London School of Economics Information Systems department is clearly getting irritated at the government's misrepresentation of the LSE research into the proposed ID cards scheme. In a letter to the Telegraph he says,
"Sir - What is going on with this so-called "debate" on ID cards? While appearing on the BBC's Hardtalk last week, immigration minister Tony McNulty claimed that, at a recent meeting in the House of Lords, the LSE had "admitted" that its estimate of the cost of ID cards was "hopelessly wrong". We made no such statement, and no one who attended that meeting could possibly make that inference.
This is typical of how debate over ID cards has degenerated into grand-standing and misrepresentation. With some minor adjustments, we stand by the figures we published in our June report. The reason our calculations differ from those of the Home Office is that we focused on the cost of implementing the scheme across government, while the Home Office estimated merely its own departmental costs.
It is the mission of the department of information systems at the LSE to be at the centre of academic research into any technological initiative that will have a major effect on the population. Having our position misrepresented by ministers will not deflect us from that position. So please, no more nonsense over figures. Let's get on with the real debate about the impact of this proposal on the nation, its effect on the lives of its citizens, and whether the systems stand any chance of functioning at an acceptable level."
"Sir - What is going on with this so-called "debate" on ID cards? While appearing on the BBC's Hardtalk last week, immigration minister Tony McNulty claimed that, at a recent meeting in the House of Lords, the LSE had "admitted" that its estimate of the cost of ID cards was "hopelessly wrong". We made no such statement, and no one who attended that meeting could possibly make that inference.
This is typical of how debate over ID cards has degenerated into grand-standing and misrepresentation. With some minor adjustments, we stand by the figures we published in our June report. The reason our calculations differ from those of the Home Office is that we focused on the cost of implementing the scheme across government, while the Home Office estimated merely its own departmental costs.
It is the mission of the department of information systems at the LSE to be at the centre of academic research into any technological initiative that will have a major effect on the population. Having our position misrepresented by ministers will not deflect us from that position. So please, no more nonsense over figures. Let's get on with the real debate about the impact of this proposal on the nation, its effect on the lives of its citizens, and whether the systems stand any chance of functioning at an acceptable level."
Entertainment industry opportunism
It seems as though the entertainment industry in the EU have taken a leaf out of their US brethen's handbook. Just as the industry in the US attempted (though fortunately failed) to have a provision slipped into the PATRIOT Act in the emotional aftermath of 9/11, to enable them to hack into people's computers, the Creative and Media Business Alliance (CMBA), (i.e. Sony BMG, Disney, EMI, IFPI, Motion Picture Association, Reed Elsevier, Universal and many others) want the EU data retention proposals to be tweaked to enable the trawling of personal communications data to detect and pursue copyright infringement.
Now there is an argument to be made that the security services require access to the best available technology and people in the pursuit of serious crime and a data retention and access process, in some form, may well be a part of that. (I happen to believe the that EU data retention proposals present more problems for the police, the security services, the communications service providers and their customers than they do for the instigators of serious crime but that is another story). But as Suw Charman says here,
"Whether or not you agree with the need to retain traffic data for fighting terrorism and serious crime, there can be no benefit to national security from allowing the creative industries to use this information for prosecuting simple “infringement” cases.
Copyright Criminals
Now tie this in with IPRED2, another nasty bit of legislation which criminalises all “intellectual property” infringement on a commercial scale and “aiding and abetting such infringement”, with very thin definitions of what “commercial scale” or “intellectual property” means. The two directives together become even more alarming.
IPRED2 mandates that the police work with rightsholders to pursue suspected cases of IP infringement - including patent infringements - or merely vocal encouragement of infringement. And the Data Retention directive provides them with reams of data they can mine for evidence against these suspected infringers.
At the latest IPRED2 hearing, that’s exactly what the CBMA’s parent organisation, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), demanded.
This opens up a very ugly can of worms where entire industries can get unparalleled powers of investigation, provided at the taxpayer’s expense.
Moreover, if the CMBA get their way, the number of data retention enquiries that the telcos and ISPs will have to process will be far higher than if restricted to terrorism and serious crime. This will put far more pressure on the telcos and ISPs who will not only have to bear the cost of storing the data, but also of providing access to the information to the authorities."
Remember what I was saying about the gaffer tape and Sony CDs yesterday? You could become a copyright criminal by sticking some tape round the edge of a Sony CD in order to stop it damaging your computer. So if Sony suspect you may have tried this trick (they'll have your personal details which you had to hand over to get the software to allegedly uninstall the damaging code, the same software which did no such thing and actually caused you further security headaches), under the tweaked data retention and the IPRED2 regulations they can demand a police investigation into your activities; an investigation which would include your communications data for the previous six months (phone calls, web sites visited, emails etc.)
The spectre of the systemic effect of the combination of technology, special interests, politics and ignorance looms again.
Now there is an argument to be made that the security services require access to the best available technology and people in the pursuit of serious crime and a data retention and access process, in some form, may well be a part of that. (I happen to believe the that EU data retention proposals present more problems for the police, the security services, the communications service providers and their customers than they do for the instigators of serious crime but that is another story). But as Suw Charman says here,
"Whether or not you agree with the need to retain traffic data for fighting terrorism and serious crime, there can be no benefit to national security from allowing the creative industries to use this information for prosecuting simple “infringement” cases.
Copyright Criminals
Now tie this in with IPRED2, another nasty bit of legislation which criminalises all “intellectual property” infringement on a commercial scale and “aiding and abetting such infringement”, with very thin definitions of what “commercial scale” or “intellectual property” means. The two directives together become even more alarming.
IPRED2 mandates that the police work with rightsholders to pursue suspected cases of IP infringement - including patent infringements - or merely vocal encouragement of infringement. And the Data Retention directive provides them with reams of data they can mine for evidence against these suspected infringers.
At the latest IPRED2 hearing, that’s exactly what the CBMA’s parent organisation, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), demanded.
This opens up a very ugly can of worms where entire industries can get unparalleled powers of investigation, provided at the taxpayer’s expense.
Moreover, if the CMBA get their way, the number of data retention enquiries that the telcos and ISPs will have to process will be far higher than if restricted to terrorism and serious crime. This will put far more pressure on the telcos and ISPs who will not only have to bear the cost of storing the data, but also of providing access to the information to the authorities."
Remember what I was saying about the gaffer tape and Sony CDs yesterday? You could become a copyright criminal by sticking some tape round the edge of a Sony CD in order to stop it damaging your computer. So if Sony suspect you may have tried this trick (they'll have your personal details which you had to hand over to get the software to allegedly uninstall the damaging code, the same software which did no such thing and actually caused you further security headaches), under the tweaked data retention and the IPRED2 regulations they can demand a police investigation into your activities; an investigation which would include your communications data for the previous six months (phone calls, web sites visited, emails etc.)
The spectre of the systemic effect of the combination of technology, special interests, politics and ignorance looms again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)