Unfortunately, Mr Burnham doesn’t know anything about the Internet and seems to be arguing by analogy, and with a childlike hope that merely wishing for something will make it come true.
Strange Aeons
sesquipedalia verba
Simon Wells is an academic researching Argumentation Theory, Automated Reasoning, Intelligent Agents (IA) and MultiAgent Systems (MAS) all approached through a ludic lens.
He is particularly interested in how these tools can be usefully applied to critical literacy, security, gamification, and complex systems.
TwitterIf Wishes Was Fishes
I might have been (marginally) premature in my suggestions for ways around the proposed government e-fishing expeditions. Others with far more experience than I are pointing out the absurdities of Andy Burnham's proposals, to particularly comic effect in places:
Avoiding the Drag Net
- You will have to fight us for it, and even if you win,
- We won't make it easy for you!
Privacy Issues in Web 2.0
The title of this NY Times piece "You’re Leaving a Digital Trail. What About Privacy?" is I think a bit misleading.
A lynchpin of Web 2.0 is of course user supplied content, whether that is information in the form of blog posts and subsequent comments holding personal opinion, linkages between data such as users indicating their friends on myspace, automated linkages such as records of consumption of music or other data, or automated data acquisition from real-world sensors. The key aspect of these though is the opt-in nature of the interaction. Users can choose to join myspace, or to comment, or to blog, or to share their data in any myriad of forms. They can choose to use existing services that provide these capabilities, or, because of the wonderful open way that the internet and computers are designed, they can choose to roll their own solutions; create a new system that does the nearly same but in the way that you want it to. If privacy safeguards are insufficient then you do not need to opt-in in the first place. In practice, if the safeguards of an existing system prove insufficient then you can choose to opt-out of something that you have joined, just stop using it or find, or build, an alternative. The lack of compulsion in whether not you use the system is an important factor.
Caveat #1 - Web 2.0 Services should do what they say on the can. As a rule you should be able to retrieve your data and take it with you when you leave, in practice this might not be so straightforward due to the need of many systems to try to create lock-in or walled gardens. Nevertheless, if a system starts off by creating one type of relationship with its user then changes the rules, or to use the current parlance the "terms of service", then that relationship should not change without making the consequences very clear and ensuring that if the change leads to a change in the privacy position for the users then they should be given every opportunity to opt-IN to the new system relying upon assumed content.
Caveat #2 - I believe that people must control their own privacy and that the state, in general, has no business invading the privacy of individuals. This means that whom I communicate with, the nature of that communication, and the content of my communications are the business of myself and the people with whom I communicate and of NOBODY ELSE, unless I explicitly deem otherwise.
Cory Doctorow - Little Brother
Quote: John F. Kennedy
The last post reminded me somewhat of the following quote:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - John F. Kennedy
The Loss of Rights
I recently discovered protests.org.uk recently which lists some of the attacks made on liberty in the U.K. during recent years. These include:
- The government can ban any groups it labels ‘terrorist’ - Terrorism Act 2000
- The government can monitor any and all private communication - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
- Armed forces can be deployed on UK soil in peacetime - Civil Contingencies Act 2004
- Property and assets can be seized without warning or compensation - Civil Contingencies Act 2004
- Spontaneous protest is now illegal around Parliament - Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
- Without trial, any British citizen can be tagged, put under house arrest and banned from using the telephone or internet - Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
- Any citizen can be imprisoned without charge for 28 days (42 days has passed the house of commons) - Terrorism Act 2006
- The executive can change any current legislation without consulting Parliament, with very few exceptions - Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006
- Arbitrary punishments with no legal precedents can be issued with little legal recourse, based on hearsay evidence - Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003
- British citizens can be extradicted to the United States with no evidence presented - Extradition Act 2003
- Compulsory identification for all British citizens, with an unlimited amount of details stored in a central database, which the private sector will have access to - Identity Cards Act 2006
- Upon arrest the police have claim to your DNA, even if you are released without charge - Criminal Justice Act 2003
They picked Akanni up one morning
They picked Akanni up one morning Beat him soft like clay And stuffed him down the belly Of a waiting jeep.
- What business of mine is it
- So long they don't take the yam
- From my savouring mouth?
They came one night Booted the whole house awake And dragged Danladi out, Then off to a lengthy absence.
- What business of mine is it
- So long they don't take the yam
- From my savouring mouth?
Chinwe went to work one day Only to find her job was gone: No query, no warning, no probe- Just one neat sack for a stainless record.
- What business of mine is it
- So long they don't take the yam
- From my savouring mouth?
And then one evening As I sat down to eat my yam A knock on the door froze my hungry hand. The jeep was waiting on my bewildered lawn Waiting, waiting in its usual silence.(Niyi Osundare)
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Kommunist.Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat. Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten, habe ich nicht protestiert; ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter. Als sie die Juden holten, habe ich geschwiegen; ich war ja kein Jude. Als sie mich holten, gab es keinen mehr, der protestieren konnte. (Pastor Martin Niemöller)Which translates to:
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat. When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
On Rule of Law
I sometimes get into disagreements with people because I support the rule of law. Generally the argument is along the lines of, "well he knew he was guilty, he just couldn't prove it", and therefore, my opponents argument goes, he should be allowed to act outside the law. The problem is that the law ultimately protects us, and if we suspend it because of an extraordinarily extra-special case then we run the risk of losing that protection, maybe because we unfortunately become persona non grata or else because we happen to be opposed to somebody in a position of power. In addition once we make even a single exception then we will have a precedent for doing it again because, "well, he is as bad as so-and-so". I use the same argument to support my position on freedom of speech. You have the right to say what you like because that is also my right. If you have a good position then I am sure that you will be able to defend it. If you have a weak position then there will be many people ready to stand up and point out the weaknesses in your position.
Anyhow, I recently found a good story that illustrates my position, it is in an article supporting so-called gay-marriage* but it is applicable nonetheless:
In Robery Bolt's 1962 play A Man for All Seasons, Sir Thomas More, a judge, lets a man go free, even though he has the power to arrest him and knows that that man will betray him, because that man has broken no laws. His daughter's suitor, Roper, tells More he should have stopped the betrayer. More says, "And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!" Roper responds, "So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of the law!" "Yes," More replies, "What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?" "I'd cut down every law in England to do that!" And here's the important part: "Oh?" returns More, "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast—man's laws, not God's—and if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"Proviso: I support the rule of law, except where a good argument can be made that the law is wrong, such as laws on recreational drug use, prohibiting gay marriage/adoption, prohibiting euthanasia, restricting abortion, &c., &c.. Under those circumstances then I feel that it is a civic duty to disobey that particular law until the lawmakers see sense and change the law. Some will argue that this takes us back to the original position that causes the disagreements in the first place. My defense however is that I say the where law is wrong it must be changed. The law is not a static entity but a living, dynamic entity that will evolve over time. I am definitely not arguing for a suspension of the law for special cases but for the application of just laws that are applied equally to all, and that are refined or struck down as necessary. * I italicise the words gay-marriage not because I disagree with it but because the term itself is repugnant. In a just society, we shouldn't even have to refer to marriage between homosexuals in different terms to that between heterosexuals. Marriage to me is a committed union between two (or more, but that is a whole other story) persons regardless of gender. If you love someone and want to marry them then I won't stand in your way (unless of course you don't invite me to the party!).
Sabina Guzzanti
