Craig Murray the former ambassador at odds with the UK government's actions in relation to the "war on terror", is getting skeptical about whether the recent arrests related to a planned large scale terrorist attack targeting multiple airliners have any substance beyond a public relations exercise for the government. I've been taking a break from writing and my reading in the past couple of weeks has been limited exclusively to entertaining fiction, so I haven't caught up with all this yet but Murray's piece is worth a read.
"In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. More than 1,000 British Muslims have been arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, but only 12% have been charged. That is harassment on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% were acquitted. Most of the few convictions - just over 2% of arrests - are nothing to do with terrorism, but some minor offence the police happened upon while trawling through the lives they have wrecked.
Plainly, Islamist terrorism does exist. But its growth is encouraged by our adherence to neocon foreign policy, by our support for appalling regimes abroad, and by our trampling on the rights of Muslims in the UK."
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Friday, August 18, 2006
NSA spying unconstitutional says judge
A federal judge has declared the Bush administration's NSA domestic spying program unconstitutional. The NYT has a report as do all the usual outlets. Civil liberties groups are pretty pleased.
Update: Some notable extracts from the decision - On page 23-24,
"It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never condensed into a single branch of government."
From Page 33:
"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."
On page 40:
"The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."
Federal judges don't get much blunter than that.
Update: Some notable extracts from the decision - On page 23-24,
"It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another. It is within the court's duty to ensure that power is never condensed into a single branch of government."
From Page 33:
"The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has undisputedly violated the Fourth [Amendment] in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well."
On page 40:
"The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.
We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."
Federal judges don't get much blunter than that.
Saturday, August 05, 2006
Blackboard patent litigation rouses the elearning community
Well at least the open and e-learning* communities have been getting worked up about the Blackboard patent litigation, even if no one else has. Here's a sample from Stephen Downes and Alex Reid. Reid says:
"With any luck this ridiculous claim will fall flat, meanwhile a few observations on why this was a bad idea, even from their own perspective.
Well said.
*Just as a matter of interest, I don't believe there is any such thing as 'e-learning', any more than there is e-commerce, e-government or e-anything else. e-anything is just the activity supported, facilitated or complimented by new technologies. What's really important for education is open learning, whatever format or vessel facilitates it. The Blackboard patent, in spite of the pedagogic strait jacket the architecture and thinking imposes, is still bad news, in my opinion, for open learning.
"With any luck this ridiculous claim will fall flat, meanwhile a few observations on why this was a bad idea, even from their own perspective.
1. Though increasing numbers of faculty may be entering the area of online education, the practice is still heavily reliant upon a small number of faculty. They are the early adopters who then turn around and evangelize for technology, encourage campus support for new technologies, and support other faculty in taking that first step. On my campus, you'd be talking about a dozen or so faculty. Our campus has used Web CT (bought up by Blackboard last year).
Why would I, or any of these faculty, invest our time in learning or developing practices within a strictly proprietary environment that is wholly counter not only to the principles of academic freedom but also to the potential of global communication. After all, this is roughly analogous to giving some publisher a patent for textbooks!
2. Technology education is currently a field of scholarly investigation. Developments in online pedagogy rely upon such research. This far-reaching patent would essentially put an end to any research in online pedagogy. Why research new cooking recipes when you'll be sued if you make anything but a Big Mac?
3. There may be a lot of money to be made in the area of online education, but not by teachers. It may be the case that many faculty are unaware of Blackboard's patent claims or haven't thought through the implications. However, when this situation is properly presented as an infringement on academic freedom, I think there will be a significant response. Specifically, it is difficult, if not impossible in most cases, to require faculty to teach online. If the choice is between Blackboard and not being online then we must not offer online courses.
However, I do not think we need to make this choice. Instead, perhaps Blackboard's patent is the evil impetus to move us away from a "course-based system" of "online courses:" the bad idea that they want to claim as their fundamental intellectual property.
What happens if I establish a wiki, not associated with any particular course or even necessarily with my college? I let anyone create an account and participate on the wiki. I might post material on the wiki and require my students to read it, just as I might ask students to read material on other websites. I might require students to add to the wiki. But it wouldn't be a course-based wiki. That is, it wouldn't be created for a course. It wouldn't start and end with the course. The participants on the wiki would not be limited to students registered in the course. It wouldn't even be limited to members of the college community.
Similarly, I have this blog. I use it for a number of purposes that have no direct relation to the courses I teach. I've been running it for a couple years now. If I invite my students to post here, does it suddenly become a course-based website. I don't think so.
This is the direction in which we need to head anyway, away from the "course-centric" philosophy of "management" systems. Indeed the whole notion of courses and course-credit is atavistic anyway, left over from a time when formal learning was restricted to limited times and spaces. Yes, I suppose we are still in that "time," but we are also one foot out from under it.
In my view, the very fact that Blackboard's claim begins and ends on the notion of the course is testament to their lack of vision and innovative thinking. Unfortunately higher education has long demonstrated an equal inability to innovate, but perhaps it doesn't have to stay that way."Well said.
*Just as a matter of interest, I don't believe there is any such thing as 'e-learning', any more than there is e-commerce, e-government or e-anything else. e-anything is just the activity supported, facilitated or complimented by new technologies. What's really important for education is open learning, whatever format or vessel facilitates it. The Blackboard patent, in spite of the pedagogic strait jacket the architecture and thinking imposes, is still bad news, in my opinion, for open learning.
Friday, August 04, 2006
SpyBlog on Net-ID-me
SpyBlog has a wonderful analysis of the much hyped children's ID system Net-ID-Me system launched recently, which supposed to protect kids from online predators.
"
Illegal data processing of personal information ? Is NetIDme Limited properly registered under the Data Protection Act 1998 ?
"
Why was the service launched in public, without the following points having been addressed ?
Where is there any assurance that all of the staff at NetIDme have been subjected to at least the same level of checks on the Criminal Records Bureau , as if they were employed at a school ?There is no such assurance...
Why is there no use of Secure Sockets Layer version 3 (SSL) or Transport Layer Security version 1.0 session encryption either when filling in the sensitive personal details such as Nickname and Password during registration, or to protect the online credit card details, or for a child to actually log on to the service via the website...Illegal data processing of personal information ? Is NetIDme Limited properly registered under the Data Protection Act 1998 ?
The company's entry on the the Register of Data Controllers Registration Number: Z8752777 shows only 3 statutory Purposes, under the Data Protection Act:
- Staff Administration
- Advertising, Marketing & Public Relations
- Accounts & Records
All with possible data transfers "Worldwide"
i.e. there nothing about the actual NetIDme service , customer registration, credit card name and address details, personal details of children, "sophisticated IP address tracking", audit log files etc. etc...
The NetIDme scheme claims toWhen you’ve completed the online registration, a form will be sent out to your home. The form needs to be signed by you, and your details must be confirmed by a professional person who knows you well (such as your teacher, doctor or lawyer). If you’re under 18, your parent or guardian must also sign the form.
How exactly, can NetIDme make sufficient checks on the authenticity of such signatures, when the UK Identity and Passport Service (IPS) cannot do so for Passport applications ?
If their checks on signatures and "sponsors" are not at least as good as those by the UK IPS, then what possible use are they in preventing false or multiple applications for NetIDme accounts ?"
The original is a must read though as it has load more useful information on the scheme. Needless to say SpyBlog doesn't recommend the service.Thursday, August 03, 2006
Blackboard sues for patent infringement
Education systems supplier, Blackboard, having recently been granted a broad patent (no. 6,988,138) in the US on technology used for "internet-based education support systems and methods" didn't let any grass grow under its feet before suing Desire2Learn Inc for allegedly infringing said patent. The patent has also been passed in Australia, New Zealand and Singapore and is pending in the EU and various other parts of the world.
Excuse my foaming at the mouth about this but the patent is nonsense on stilts and generically could be interpreted to describe what we have been doing here at the Open University for at least a generation and certainly for the 11 years that I've been here. I suspect Centrinity's FirstClass will be on Blackboard's lawyers' list of targets as well as the open source Moodle system the OU are adopting.
Well, if it takes this kind of patent litigation to wake the education sector (I emphatically reject the notion that universities constitute an "industry") up to the damage that can be done by an imbalance in the intellectual property system then maybe it will serve some useful purpose. The experience could well be painful. Remember Blackboard are the company that sued two technology students, under computer hacking and intellectual property laws, for daring to understand their technology and trying to present a paper on it at a security conference. From Chapter 2 of my forthcoming book, Back to the Future: Digital Decision Making:
"In 2003, two students decided to publish a research paper on an electronic security problem. The two, Billy Hoffman of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Virgil Griffith of the University of Alabama had discovered a security hole in Blackboard’s university ID card system. They decided to publish a paper on the problem at a security conference in Georgia but Blackboard’s lawyers stepped in wielding the DMCA, trademark and computer hacking laws and got a court to issue an injunction preventing the disclosure of the details of the problem.
The students eventually reached an out of court settlement with Blackboard apologising to the company for their actions and agreeing to "refrain from any further unauthorized access to or use of the System," including "any transaction designed to better understand or determine how the System works." "
Jennifer Jenkins of Duke University has a terrific write up of the case at the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.
Excuse my foaming at the mouth about this but the patent is nonsense on stilts and generically could be interpreted to describe what we have been doing here at the Open University for at least a generation and certainly for the 11 years that I've been here. I suspect Centrinity's FirstClass will be on Blackboard's lawyers' list of targets as well as the open source Moodle system the OU are adopting.
Well, if it takes this kind of patent litigation to wake the education sector (I emphatically reject the notion that universities constitute an "industry") up to the damage that can be done by an imbalance in the intellectual property system then maybe it will serve some useful purpose. The experience could well be painful. Remember Blackboard are the company that sued two technology students, under computer hacking and intellectual property laws, for daring to understand their technology and trying to present a paper on it at a security conference. From Chapter 2 of my forthcoming book, Back to the Future: Digital Decision Making:
"In 2003, two students decided to publish a research paper on an electronic security problem. The two, Billy Hoffman of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Virgil Griffith of the University of Alabama had discovered a security hole in Blackboard’s university ID card system. They decided to publish a paper on the problem at a security conference in Georgia but Blackboard’s lawyers stepped in wielding the DMCA, trademark and computer hacking laws and got a court to issue an injunction preventing the disclosure of the details of the problem.
The students eventually reached an out of court settlement with Blackboard apologising to the company for their actions and agreeing to "refrain from any further unauthorized access to or use of the System," including "any transaction designed to better understand or determine how the System works." "
Jennifer Jenkins of Duke University has a terrific write up of the case at the Chilling Effects Clearinghouse.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
EDRI-gram newsletter - Number 4.15, 2 August 2006
The latest EDRI-gram newsletter is available and full of interesting digital rights stories as usual. The three that caught my eye were the Telecom Italia wiretapping scandal, Digital Rights Ireland's data retention challenge and the delay of the EU's Schengen Information System II "that allows the competent authorities in the Member States to obtain information regarding certain categories of persons and property."
The panacea of parental choice in education
The chairman of the parliamentary education select committee, Barry Sheerman, thinks formal education should start at the later age of seven and that the "belief that parental choice can achieve good education for all is naive." He's right.
Surveillance induced depression
Some of Kim Cameron's friends have been getting depressed with the increase in mass surveillance.
"You know, this whole pervasive surveillance thing is getting depressing, especially when you combine it with RFIDs and ubicomp and similar technologies. It’s Big Brother, Little Brother, Uncle Private Eye, Little Snoopy Sister, and every other nosy parker you can think of.
"You know, this whole pervasive surveillance thing is getting depressing, especially when you combine it with RFIDs and ubicomp and similar technologies. It’s Big Brother, Little Brother, Uncle Private Eye, Little Snoopy Sister, and every other nosy parker you can think of.
If you’re interested in these sorts of things, my old buddy Bruce Sterling, who surfaces in the blog from time to time, writes pretty often about them in his Wired blog, Beyond the Beyond, which I highly recommend anyway on the grounds that Bruce is about as on top of things as anyone can be without having his head explode."
He only wanted a header...
Simon Hattenstone has been getting self conscious about watching kids having a kick about in the park and admonished by his young daughter for asking them for a header.
Generating this kind of anxiety and suspicion out of innocent behaviour is something our society specialises in and it is dangerously corrosive and destabilising. A few years back I was in a playground with my children. I spotted one of the older kids in the park pulling one of the smaller ones off the top of what was a very tall ladder from the little fellah's perspective. He could have got quite a bump if he hadn't managed to hang on. I told the bigger kid to stop, whereupon he ran off wailing "MUUUM THAT MAN TOLD ME OFF." Within seconds I was being screamed at by the mother. Well it was at least easy to see from whence her son had derived his bullying tendencies.
Fear and anxiety begets fear and anxiety and associated fearful and aggressive behaviour. The more we whip up disproportionate fear and hysteria about relatively small but spectacularly and understandably emotive risks related to everything from child protection to terrorist attacks, the more we undermine the basis of a healthy society.
Generating this kind of anxiety and suspicion out of innocent behaviour is something our society specialises in and it is dangerously corrosive and destabilising. A few years back I was in a playground with my children. I spotted one of the older kids in the park pulling one of the smaller ones off the top of what was a very tall ladder from the little fellah's perspective. He could have got quite a bump if he hadn't managed to hang on. I told the bigger kid to stop, whereupon he ran off wailing "MUUUM THAT MAN TOLD ME OFF." Within seconds I was being screamed at by the mother. Well it was at least easy to see from whence her son had derived his bullying tendencies.
Fear and anxiety begets fear and anxiety and associated fearful and aggressive behaviour. The more we whip up disproportionate fear and hysteria about relatively small but spectacularly and understandably emotive risks related to everything from child protection to terrorist attacks, the more we undermine the basis of a healthy society.
The wisdom of H.L. Mencken
Quote of the day:
"I BELIEVE THAT LIBERTY IS THE ONLY GENUINELY VALUABLE THING THAT MEN HAVE INVENTED, AT LEAST IN THE FIELD OF GOVERNMENT, IN A THOUSAND YEARS. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO BE FREE THAN TO BE NOT FREE, EVEN WHEN THE FORMER IS DANGEROUS AND THE LATTER SAFE. I BELIEVE THAT THE FINEST QUALITIES OF MAN CAN FLOURISH ONLY IN FREE AIR - THAT PROGRESS MADE UNDER THE SHADOW OF THE POLICEMAN'S CLUB IS FALSE PROGRESS, AND OF NO PERMANENT VALUE. I BELIEVE THAT ANY MAN WHO TAKES THE LIBERTY OF ANOTHER INTO HIS KEEPING IS BOUND TO BECOME A TYRANT, AND THAT ANY MAN WHO YIELDS UP HIS LIBERTY, IN HOWEVER SLIGHT THE MEASURE, IS BOUND TO BECOME A SLAVE." HENRY LOUIS MENCKEN (1880-1956)
"I BELIEVE THAT LIBERTY IS THE ONLY GENUINELY VALUABLE THING THAT MEN HAVE INVENTED, AT LEAST IN THE FIELD OF GOVERNMENT, IN A THOUSAND YEARS. I BELIEVE THAT IT IS BETTER TO BE FREE THAN TO BE NOT FREE, EVEN WHEN THE FORMER IS DANGEROUS AND THE LATTER SAFE. I BELIEVE THAT THE FINEST QUALITIES OF MAN CAN FLOURISH ONLY IN FREE AIR - THAT PROGRESS MADE UNDER THE SHADOW OF THE POLICEMAN'S CLUB IS FALSE PROGRESS, AND OF NO PERMANENT VALUE. I BELIEVE THAT ANY MAN WHO TAKES THE LIBERTY OF ANOTHER INTO HIS KEEPING IS BOUND TO BECOME A TYRANT, AND THAT ANY MAN WHO YIELDS UP HIS LIBERTY, IN HOWEVER SLIGHT THE MEASURE, IS BOUND TO BECOME A SLAVE." HENRY LOUIS MENCKEN (1880-1956)
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Blair buys Cliff's copyright rhetoric
Tony Blair, according to the Sunday Times has bought Cliff Richard's and the BPI's rhetoric about extending the term of copyright on sound recordings.
"The Sunday Times has obtained a written record of an internal Labour meeting at which the prime minister sets out his priorities.
At the meeting of the national executive committee on July 19 last year Blair said that despite the “dominating global headlines” and recent terror attacks, Labour must not lose sight of the domestic agenda.
In the midst of such high-profile issues as the liberalisation of the Post Office and public apathy to elections, Blair “addressed concerns” about copyright laws “whereby Cliff Richard and the Rolling Stones only receive 50 years’ protection compared with 70 years in the rest of Europe”, according to one member’s detailed written record. "
"The Sunday Times has obtained a written record of an internal Labour meeting at which the prime minister sets out his priorities.
At the meeting of the national executive committee on July 19 last year Blair said that despite the “dominating global headlines” and recent terror attacks, Labour must not lose sight of the domestic agenda.
In the midst of such high-profile issues as the liberalisation of the Post Office and public apathy to elections, Blair “addressed concerns” about copyright laws “whereby Cliff Richard and the Rolling Stones only receive 50 years’ protection compared with 70 years in the rest of Europe”, according to one member’s detailed written record. "
EU plan to fingerprint all children
The Observer reports this morning on an EU plan to fingerprint all children in member states.
"British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world.
The prospect has alarmed civil liberties groups who fear it represents a 'sea change' in the state's relationship with children and one that may lead to juveniles being erroneously accused of crimes. Under laws being drawn up behind closed doors by the European Commission's 'Article Six' committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union's 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport by June 2009 at the latest.
The use of fingerprints and other biometric data is designed to prevent passport fraud and allow European member states to meet US entry visa requirements"
Yet again the claim that fingerprints are required on passports to meet US requirements is trotted out without question. Yet again it will be believed. Yet again it is wrong. The US only require a digital photo on the passport at the moment. Besides, they fnigerprint all foreign visitors now themselves under the US VISIT programme.
They know not what they do and unsurprisingly those reporting on what they do are also somewhat confused.
Update: John Lettice, the Register's resident ID polemisist has a few choice things to say about the kiddiprinters.
"British children, possibly as young as six, will be subjected to compulsory fingerprinting under European Union rules being drawn up in secret. The prints will be stored on a database which could be shared with countries around the world.
The prospect has alarmed civil liberties groups who fear it represents a 'sea change' in the state's relationship with children and one that may lead to juveniles being erroneously accused of crimes. Under laws being drawn up behind closed doors by the European Commission's 'Article Six' committee, which is composed of representatives of the European Union's 25 member states, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport by June 2009 at the latest.
The use of fingerprints and other biometric data is designed to prevent passport fraud and allow European member states to meet US entry visa requirements"
Yet again the claim that fingerprints are required on passports to meet US requirements is trotted out without question. Yet again it will be believed. Yet again it is wrong. The US only require a digital photo on the passport at the moment. Besides, they fnigerprint all foreign visitors now themselves under the US VISIT programme.
They know not what they do and unsurprisingly those reporting on what they do are also somewhat confused.
Update: John Lettice, the Register's resident ID polemisist has a few choice things to say about the kiddiprinters.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Censorship or privacy protection?
Another small skirmish in the battles over genetically modified crops has been playing out in France. A French court has ordered Greenpeace to take down webpages identifying the location of fields growing genetically modified crops. Greenpeace says it is censorship. The court said the environment advocacy group were invading the farmers' privacy. They've also protested the decision by going into one of the fields concerned and cutting an X in a circle into the crop.
Greenpeace France spokesman, Arnaud Apoteker, says "As we are now forbidden to publish these maps of GE maize on our webpage, we have gone into the fields and marked the field for real." Greenpeace reckon that EU regulations make it an obligation for member states to maintain publicly accessible registers of the location of GM crop growth. The words 'irritated judge', 'contempt', 'court' and 'of' come to mind, though not necessarily in that order.
Greenpeace France spokesman, Arnaud Apoteker, says "As we are now forbidden to publish these maps of GE maize on our webpage, we have gone into the fields and marked the field for real." Greenpeace reckon that EU regulations make it an obligation for member states to maintain publicly accessible registers of the location of GM crop growth. The words 'irritated judge', 'contempt', 'court' and 'of' come to mind, though not necessarily in that order.
French drm law turns poisonous
The various shenanigans in France surrounding the implementation of the 2001 EU copyright directive have latterly turned poisonous. Jean-Baptiste Soufron has the details:
"Disappearance of Fair Use provisions, new liability of software developers, increased liability of users, compulsory licensing for DRM producers, etc.
To sum it up, the Court decided to censor 4 provisions supposed to protect software developers and internet users...
The Court erases the exception that protected software developers who were specifically working on collaborative software, research or file sharing. Given the decision, any French developers working on such softwares could be sued by DRM producers or copyright holders. Even when it software is intended for non-copyrighted contents. So, no matter whether people use P2P software for some distributed business model or just to share Creative Commons-music, it’s already illegal...
The Court deletes the interoperability exception that was supposed to protect competition and free software developers. Without prior authorization, it will not be possible anymore to develop a software that could interact with DRM-encumbered content. This is true for Free Software developers, but it is also true for start-ups like Archos or Dailymotion...
The Court deletes the system that was punishing internet users with a 38 or 75 euros fine. Consequently, they will be sued under the default procedures and risk up to 5 years and 500 000 euros.
- On top of that, the Constitutional Court decided that it was normal to annihilate the French version of Fair Use. Without regards for the importance of cultural exchange amongst individuals, it even precised that it was normal for DRM producers obstacle à toute copie, which means "to forbid any copy". Nothing less.
All the balance will now depend on the newly created DRM Regulation Authority. This will decide the minimum amount of copies that can be done, etc.
But most importantly, the Law creates a compulsory licensing scheme for DRM producers. When asked, the DRM Regulation Authority can mandate companies like Apple to communicate essential information on their DRM to competitors: le demandeur peut obtenir l’accès aux informations essentielles à l’interopérabilité, meaning that competitors will have the opportunity to ask for essential informations necessary for interoperability.
The Court only precised that they would need to be indemnified for this. To quote them: cette communication devra entraîner leur indemnisation, this communication will have to be indemnified. But the principle is still the same: DRM producers can be mandated to license their technology to competitors.
Given these various points, the DADVSI is by far the hardest internet Law ever passed in the world. It seriously impedes the development of French startups in this sector."
"Disappearance of Fair Use provisions, new liability of software developers, increased liability of users, compulsory licensing for DRM producers, etc.
To sum it up, the Court decided to censor 4 provisions supposed to protect software developers and internet users...
The Court erases the exception that protected software developers who were specifically working on collaborative software, research or file sharing. Given the decision, any French developers working on such softwares could be sued by DRM producers or copyright holders. Even when it software is intended for non-copyrighted contents. So, no matter whether people use P2P software for some distributed business model or just to share Creative Commons-music, it’s already illegal...
The Court deletes the interoperability exception that was supposed to protect competition and free software developers. Without prior authorization, it will not be possible anymore to develop a software that could interact with DRM-encumbered content. This is true for Free Software developers, but it is also true for start-ups like Archos or Dailymotion...
The Court deletes the system that was punishing internet users with a 38 or 75 euros fine. Consequently, they will be sued under the default procedures and risk up to 5 years and 500 000 euros.
- On top of that, the Constitutional Court decided that it was normal to annihilate the French version of Fair Use. Without regards for the importance of cultural exchange amongst individuals, it even precised that it was normal for DRM producers obstacle à toute copie, which means "to forbid any copy". Nothing less.
All the balance will now depend on the newly created DRM Regulation Authority. This will decide the minimum amount of copies that can be done, etc.
But most importantly, the Law creates a compulsory licensing scheme for DRM producers. When asked, the DRM Regulation Authority can mandate companies like Apple to communicate essential information on their DRM to competitors: le demandeur peut obtenir l’accès aux informations essentielles à l’interopérabilité, meaning that competitors will have the opportunity to ask for essential informations necessary for interoperability.
The Court only precised that they would need to be indemnified for this. To quote them: cette communication devra entraîner leur indemnisation, this communication will have to be indemnified. But the principle is still the same: DRM producers can be mandated to license their technology to competitors.
Given these various points, the DADVSI is by far the hardest internet Law ever passed in the world. It seriously impedes the development of French startups in this sector."
War crimes immunity for US?
Jack Balkan has been analysing the Bush administration's proposals in response to the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, gauranteeing Guantanamo detainees the protections of the Geneva convention. In particular he is concerned with the moves to amend or abolish the 1996 War Crimes Act, which basically says US citizens found guilty of committing war crimes will be fined, jailed or executed.
"So the Administration position, post-Hamdan, is that Congress should excuse Americans (and Administration officials) from liability for possible war crimes, either because the act is unnecessary-- since we have always acted humanely except for a few bad apples who didn't take orders from the Administration-- or because it is necessary-- since the Administration has in fact ordered people to violate Common Article 3...
And what about those bad apples who were acting completely on their own? Well, there's the rub, you see. If any of them is ever prosecuted under the War Crimes Act, their most likely defense will be that they weren't really bad apples after all, but were actually following orders of the Administration-- the same Administration that insists that it has always treated its detainees humanely. And if a jury were to find that they believed this defense, it would be a bit-- shall we say-- embarrassing for the Administration. So to minimize the risk of any such embarrassments, the Administration would prefer that even the bad apples don't get prosecuted under the War Crimes statute.
So there you have it. A law making it a illegal to commit war crimes is simply a luxury that we Americans can't afford."
"So the Administration position, post-Hamdan, is that Congress should excuse Americans (and Administration officials) from liability for possible war crimes, either because the act is unnecessary-- since we have always acted humanely except for a few bad apples who didn't take orders from the Administration-- or because it is necessary-- since the Administration has in fact ordered people to violate Common Article 3...
And what about those bad apples who were acting completely on their own? Well, there's the rub, you see. If any of them is ever prosecuted under the War Crimes Act, their most likely defense will be that they weren't really bad apples after all, but were actually following orders of the Administration-- the same Administration that insists that it has always treated its detainees humanely. And if a jury were to find that they believed this defense, it would be a bit-- shall we say-- embarrassing for the Administration. So to minimize the risk of any such embarrassments, the Administration would prefer that even the bad apples don't get prosecuted under the War Crimes statute.
So there you have it. A law making it a illegal to commit war crimes is simply a luxury that we Americans can't afford."
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Bush tries to skate round Supreme court on tribunals
According to the NYT, the White House is trying to bypass the Supreme Court's ruling in the Hamdan case that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention.
Jack Balkan says:
" It allows detainees to be excluded from their own trials and it states that the Geneva Conventions "are not a source of judicially enforceable individual rights." Although it bans the introduction of statements obtained through "torture", it allows introduction of statements made under "coercion" (i.e., anything the Administration regards as less than torture-- which turns out to be a wide array of forms of prisoner mistreatment) unless a military judge finds that the evidence would be "unreliable." It is no accident, then, that the draft demands that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions not be judicially enforceable...
Much of the American public probably cares more about their privacy being violated by domestic surveillance than about the rights of detainees at Guantanamo, which suggests that Congress would be more likely to give in here. However, in the case of military tribunals, unlike the NSA case, the Supreme Court has declared the President's plan illegal."
Jack Balkan says:
" It allows detainees to be excluded from their own trials and it states that the Geneva Conventions "are not a source of judicially enforceable individual rights." Although it bans the introduction of statements obtained through "torture", it allows introduction of statements made under "coercion" (i.e., anything the Administration regards as less than torture-- which turns out to be a wide array of forms of prisoner mistreatment) unless a military judge finds that the evidence would be "unreliable." It is no accident, then, that the draft demands that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions not be judicially enforceable...
Much of the American public probably cares more about their privacy being violated by domestic surveillance than about the rights of detainees at Guantanamo, which suggests that Congress would be more likely to give in here. However, in the case of military tribunals, unlike the NSA case, the Supreme Court has declared the President's plan illegal."
Free copying for education in Thailand
According to Michelle Childs and Vera Fraz Thailand's supreme court has recently ruled that whole works can be copied for free for educational purposes. (Via A2K list).
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Fair elections
I'm working on chapter 7 of my book which deals with the importance of understanding the limitations of technology as a tool, using two main stories, the development of radar technology before World War II and electronic voting.
I'm mostly interested in the situation in Ireland and the UK but I just came across a lovely evoting story, told by Bev Harris at BlackBoxVoting, eminating from the 2002 Governship election in Nebraska. The law in Nebraska states that the candidates are entitled to watch the count when the votes have been cast. One of the candidates, eager to watch democracy in action, was shown an optical scanning machine and then a computer in a private room with a blank screen.
Most of the high impact e-voting stories I'm familiar with come from the US so it would be good to hear from folks on the more colourful stories on this side of the pond.
I'm mostly interested in the situation in Ireland and the UK but I just came across a lovely evoting story, told by Bev Harris at BlackBoxVoting, eminating from the 2002 Governship election in Nebraska. The law in Nebraska states that the candidates are entitled to watch the count when the votes have been cast. One of the candidates, eager to watch democracy in action, was shown an optical scanning machine and then a computer in a private room with a blank screen.
Most of the high impact e-voting stories I'm familiar with come from the US so it would be good to hear from folks on the more colourful stories on this side of the pond.
Mandated interoperability for DRM
Susan Crawford is concerned at developments in France to mandate interoperability of DRM systems, mainly because of the bureaucratic nightmare which she envisages will inevitably be created to administer the regulations.
ALPSP response to British Library Content Strategy
The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) (trade association for no profit publishers) has responded to the British Library's Content Strategy.
"We believe that a shift towards the provision of online rather than physical access is appropriate. However, customer expectations of what is possible with online content are limited only by the capabilities of the technology, and not by realistic business considerations; at the extreme, every UK citizen might expect free online access, and unhindered re-use, at home or at work to everything in the Library’s collection, which would obviously destroy the market for publishers....
We welcome the Library’s intention to play a more active role with regard to the collection of primary research data...
We absolutely reject, however, the Library’s view (see footnote 3, Page 3) that digitised full-text resources should be considered in the same light as research data. They are not the same – both authors and publishers may still have rights in these resources, which must be respected...
We remain to be convinced that institutional repositories will ever be significantly populated...To date, publishers’ policies with regard to author self-archiving have been remarkably relaxed. However, some journals have now reached the situation where all or most of their content is available in a single subject-based repository, and this is giving rise to some concern...
Thus we would urge the Library to exercise caution in its involvement with those repositories which replicate the content of journals; we are particularly concerned to hear of its involvement with the UK PubMed repository, since the Wellcome Trust has publicly stated that it expects and indeed welcomes damage to existing subscription journals. We would be deeply concerned if the Library were seen to be promoting the use of free but potentially inferior versions of published content."
I have two initial reactions:
1. It is not 'obvious' to me that online versions of content destroy the market for printed versions. The equation is far more complex and in relation to the music industry, for example, the claim that -
Number of downloads = number of lost sales
- is demonstrably false.
Lessig, in Free Culture, suggested there were four generic categories of those who use P2P -
A/ those who download instead of buying
B/ those who use P2P to sample before buying,
C/ those who get content that is otherwise difficult to buy
D/ and those who get content that is released under a less restrictive licence like creative commons.
This is not an exlusive list and these can be extended and further refined e.g. category A without the disposable income to buy the music, so downloading does not equate to a lost sale, as that person would not otherwise have had access to it.
2. I'm disappointed with the attack on PubMed and the Wellcome Trust support for open access. I wasn't aware that the latter had 'publicly stated that it expects and indeed welcomes damage to existing subscription journals.' Could someone point me at the source for that claim? (There is no citation in the ALPSP report backing this)
Thanks to Peter Suber for the heads up.
"We believe that a shift towards the provision of online rather than physical access is appropriate. However, customer expectations of what is possible with online content are limited only by the capabilities of the technology, and not by realistic business considerations; at the extreme, every UK citizen might expect free online access, and unhindered re-use, at home or at work to everything in the Library’s collection, which would obviously destroy the market for publishers....
We welcome the Library’s intention to play a more active role with regard to the collection of primary research data...
We absolutely reject, however, the Library’s view (see footnote 3, Page 3) that digitised full-text resources should be considered in the same light as research data. They are not the same – both authors and publishers may still have rights in these resources, which must be respected...
We remain to be convinced that institutional repositories will ever be significantly populated...To date, publishers’ policies with regard to author self-archiving have been remarkably relaxed. However, some journals have now reached the situation where all or most of their content is available in a single subject-based repository, and this is giving rise to some concern...
Thus we would urge the Library to exercise caution in its involvement with those repositories which replicate the content of journals; we are particularly concerned to hear of its involvement with the UK PubMed repository, since the Wellcome Trust has publicly stated that it expects and indeed welcomes damage to existing subscription journals. We would be deeply concerned if the Library were seen to be promoting the use of free but potentially inferior versions of published content."
I have two initial reactions:
1. It is not 'obvious' to me that online versions of content destroy the market for printed versions. The equation is far more complex and in relation to the music industry, for example, the claim that -
Number of downloads = number of lost sales
- is demonstrably false.
Lessig, in Free Culture, suggested there were four generic categories of those who use P2P -
A/ those who download instead of buying
B/ those who use P2P to sample before buying,
C/ those who get content that is otherwise difficult to buy
D/ and those who get content that is released under a less restrictive licence like creative commons.
This is not an exlusive list and these can be extended and further refined e.g. category A without the disposable income to buy the music, so downloading does not equate to a lost sale, as that person would not otherwise have had access to it.
2. I'm disappointed with the attack on PubMed and the Wellcome Trust support for open access. I wasn't aware that the latter had 'publicly stated that it expects and indeed welcomes damage to existing subscription journals.' Could someone point me at the source for that claim? (There is no citation in the ALPSP report backing this)
Thanks to Peter Suber for the heads up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)