I'm rather proud, I think :)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Phoul is fair and fair is Phorm?
Apparently, as a member of the ORG and FIPR Advisory Boards, plus interested blogger, I am part of "the hydra-headed gang of online privacy pirates whose purpose is to damage Phorm."
I'm rather proud, I think :)
I'm rather proud, I think :)
Monday, April 27, 2009
Pull The Other One, It's Got Emails On It
Pangloss's fevered response to just watching Jacqui Smith on BBC News at Ten:
Yeh, Jacqui Smith, you're not creating the giant super-database of all our calls, emails, IMs, Twitters etc, all in one place run by the state AFTER ALL because you respect our privacy so much. Riiight.
And it's got nothing at all to do with being told repeatedly that (a) data mining across that huge pile of material is so inaccurate the results are not remotely worth the costs and can't anyway be used in court (b) the costs of the super-database were going to be super enormous at a time when the country is nosediving into bankruptcy (a former Government minister told me point blank, some months ago, that the government simply didn't have the money for this) and (c) the chances of a giant super-data breach from this single-point-of-failure multiple-authorised-access super-database - which would make the HMRC data breach look like a drop in an ocean of , er, excrement - were higher than the odds-on chances of the Tories winning the next election.
Yehhh. Right.
Alternately JC has woken up and smelt the roses of privacy after her own and her hubbie's little recent pecadillos were exposed by the press. But mostly, yeh, right.
Yeh, Jacqui Smith, you're not creating the giant super-database of all our calls, emails, IMs, Twitters etc, all in one place run by the state AFTER ALL because you respect our privacy so much. Riiight.
And it's got nothing at all to do with being told repeatedly that (a) data mining across that huge pile of material is so inaccurate the results are not remotely worth the costs and can't anyway be used in court (b) the costs of the super-database were going to be super enormous at a time when the country is nosediving into bankruptcy (a former Government minister told me point blank, some months ago, that the government simply didn't have the money for this) and (c) the chances of a giant super-data breach from this single-point-of-failure multiple-authorised-access super-database - which would make the HMRC data breach look like a drop in an ocean of , er, excrement - were higher than the odds-on chances of the Tories winning the next election.
Yehhh. Right.
Alternately JC has woken up and smelt the roses of privacy after her own and her hubbie's little recent pecadillos were exposed by the press. But mostly, yeh, right.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Pirate Bay climbs aboard Google!
Well, kinda.
As Boing-Boing says:
"When The Pirate Bay was ordered shut down by the Swedish courts because it linked to infringing torrents on the Internet, many people pointed out that Google links to whole mountains' -- whole planets' -- worth of infringing stuff. Now, to make the point, comes The Pirate Google, a Google mashup that finds torrent files:"
The Pirate Google (via Everything is Miscellaneous).
Pangloss sez: clever stuff. What it emphasises is how much is in the signals about intention that emerge about a site. The Pirate Bay case was a foregone conclusion, in practice if not in law, once it became apparent the defendants were not actually anarchic hippies but clever people making a living from the advertising on the site AND had had the audacity for several years to ignore and mock the recod industry's efforts to stop them connecting to torrent files, and generally made it plain they had no respect for the law of copyright.
Google, on the other hand, has consistently shown a willingness to be a business partner who stands by the rule of law. It is certainly trying to shift the law of copyright into channels more appropriate for the 21st century (essentially getting the rightsholders to opt into copyright protection, not out (see Google Library passim) and take some share of the work involved in getting copyright monetised (see the still running Viacom/You Tube debate) ) - but both of these strategies show an intelligence about how copyright could still operate successfully in a digitused world, rather than an intent to destroy the revenues of the content providers per se. In fact one might dare to say , it shows more intelligence than most the content providers themselves have:)
And incidentally for those out there who have decided Google is just as "evil" as the Pirate Bay or before it Napster or KaZaa , consider that exactly the same mash up trick could have been dome , sans the actual search engine, with any big news site , like the BBC; they have all had multiple links to the Pirate Bay and other torrent and P2P sites over the years.
Wonder if anyone will try to get the "Google" Pirate Bay site taken down, especially in Sweden? Now that would be interesting..
Also from various places: The judge in the case seems to have ties to the copyright industry. The lawyer for one of the defendants is calling for a new trial. Will this really happen? Pangloss doubts it, but watch this space..
As Boing-Boing says:
"When The Pirate Bay was ordered shut down by the Swedish courts because it linked to infringing torrents on the Internet, many people pointed out that Google links to whole mountains' -- whole planets' -- worth of infringing stuff. Now, to make the point, comes The Pirate Google, a Google mashup that finds torrent files:"
The Pirate Google (via Everything is Miscellaneous).
Pangloss sez: clever stuff. What it emphasises is how much is in the signals about intention that emerge about a site. The Pirate Bay case was a foregone conclusion, in practice if not in law, once it became apparent the defendants were not actually anarchic hippies but clever people making a living from the advertising on the site AND had had the audacity for several years to ignore and mock the recod industry's efforts to stop them connecting to torrent files, and generally made it plain they had no respect for the law of copyright.
Google, on the other hand, has consistently shown a willingness to be a business partner who stands by the rule of law. It is certainly trying to shift the law of copyright into channels more appropriate for the 21st century (essentially getting the rightsholders to opt into copyright protection, not out (see Google Library passim) and take some share of the work involved in getting copyright monetised (see the still running Viacom/You Tube debate) ) - but both of these strategies show an intelligence about how copyright could still operate successfully in a digitused world, rather than an intent to destroy the revenues of the content providers per se. In fact one might dare to say , it shows more intelligence than most the content providers themselves have:)
And incidentally for those out there who have decided Google is just as "evil" as the Pirate Bay or before it Napster or KaZaa , consider that exactly the same mash up trick could have been dome , sans the actual search engine, with any big news site , like the BBC; they have all had multiple links to the Pirate Bay and other torrent and P2P sites over the years.
Wonder if anyone will try to get the "Google" Pirate Bay site taken down, especially in Sweden? Now that would be interesting..
Also from various places: The judge in the case seems to have ties to the copyright industry. The lawyer for one of the defendants is calling for a new trial. Will this really happen? Pangloss doubts it, but watch this space..
Monday, April 20, 2009
GikII 3 - Amsterdam: call for papers
You've already had the date but here's the blurb.. Feel free to distribute this as widely as possible.
GikII Comes to Amsterdam!
17-18 September 2009
Institute for Information Law (IViR)
University of Amsterdam
GikII 4th Edition, a two day workshop on the intersections between law, technology and popular culture, will be held on September 17-18th, 2009 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The chairs of the event are Joris van Hoboken, Doctoral Researcher at the Institute for Information Law, Ian Brown, Senior Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, Andres Guadamuz, Co-Director, SCRIPT Law and Technology Centre at the University of Edinburgh and Lilian Edwards, Professor of Internet Law, Sheffield University. IViR is hosting GikII in partnership with Creative Commons Netherlands.
There will be no workshop fee. Lunch, coffee and a conference dinner will be arranged free of charge. We will limit registration to 40 participants, so register early!! Preference will be given to attendees who are providing a paper.
GikII - Not for the Lulz!?
GikII is a forum for the intersection of law, technology and popular culture. After previous editions in London, Edinburgh and Oxford, GikII has gained enough steam to hit the continent. Topics covered at the last editions included killer robots, virtual property, copyright online, the many lives and deaths of privacy, fandom, avatar culture, Roman slaves and knitted Daleks.
Last year’s presentations can be viewed here .
We invite all of you that have a paper on any aspect of law AND technology, science, geek culture, blogging, creative commons, wikis, science fiction or fantasy, computer games, digital culture, gender on-line, virtual worlds, series of tubes, or deep packet inspectors, to come to GikII 4 and join us for two inspiring days of cutting edge collisions of the worlds of law, tech and popular culture. LOLcats, robot scientists and cheezburgers are especially welcome.
The call for papers
If you would like to participate, email your abstract of no more than 500 words.
This should be sent to vanhoboken@ivir.nl by July 1 2009.
We will confirm acceptances by August 1.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Cheese eating surrender monkeys did it!
For those who like an end to their stories, a plausible answer to the #amazonfail kerfuffle I blogged yesterday has emerged : it seems the French did it!
Or at least most bloggers are reporting an inside source at Amazon to this effect.
In other words, a French programmer got mixed up and wrongly edited some keywords so that books that were merely in some way coded as sexual - such as LBGT works - ended up being coded as "adult" - which apparently in Amazonspeak means "porn" , and were thus removed from sales ranks. The error was then spread through every database Amazon uses in every country it operates, as they all update and syncronise.
My tech journalist mate Simon Bisson has written a useful post (slash dotted by being linked to by Neil Gaiman on Twitter - ha - but now hopefully recovered) about how we can expect this sort of glitch to happen more and more in large database operations and how cock up is much more plausible than conspiracy.
Of course there are numerous other explanations floating round the Web including clever code bombing by right wing Christian fruitcakes over a quiet Easter holiday weekend, etcetera. But I think there's a poetic simplicity about this explanation.
Last week the more nationalistic wing of the French government (ie Sarkozy) got unexpectedly beaten out in its bid to set up a "3 Strikes" system to protect the French recording industry. What better revenge to take than to mess with the rep of the biggest purveyor of Anglophone books in the world? :)
Or at least most bloggers are reporting an inside source at Amazon to this effect.
"Well, this is the real story: a guy from Amazon France got confused on how he was editing the site, and mixed up “adult”, which is the term they use for porn, with stuff like “erotic” and “sexuality”. That browse node editor is universal, so by doing that there he affected ALL of Amazon. The CS rep thought the porn question as a standard porn question about how searches work."
In other words, a French programmer got mixed up and wrongly edited some keywords so that books that were merely in some way coded as sexual - such as LBGT works - ended up being coded as "adult" - which apparently in Amazonspeak means "porn" , and were thus removed from sales ranks. The error was then spread through every database Amazon uses in every country it operates, as they all update and syncronise.
My tech journalist mate Simon Bisson has written a useful post (slash dotted by being linked to by Neil Gaiman on Twitter - ha - but now hopefully recovered) about how we can expect this sort of glitch to happen more and more in large database operations and how cock up is much more plausible than conspiracy.
Of course there are numerous other explanations floating round the Web including clever code bombing by right wing Christian fruitcakes over a quiet Easter holiday weekend, etcetera. But I think there's a poetic simplicity about this explanation.
Last week the more nationalistic wing of the French government (ie Sarkozy) got unexpectedly beaten out in its bid to set up a "3 Strikes" system to protect the French recording industry. What better revenge to take than to mess with the rep of the biggest purveyor of Anglophone books in the world? :)
Phun times ahead for Phorm
The European commission has decided to go ahead with taking action against the UK for failing toproper;y regulate the targeted advertising system Phorm. Their press release notes:
Vivianne Reding, the EU telecommunications commisioner adds:
This is excellent news for anyone who has followed the Phorm story. First, the EC action will be based on problems with the legality of the general way Phorm works, not the one off blunder of starting trials without getting proper consents last year. In essence the charge - which was explained in a clear memorandum from FIPR by Nicholas Bohm over a year ago - is that Phorm intercept communications between users and websites on the basis of consent from the user, but not from the website. This is wiretapping and/or spyware by any other name, which is why the EU objection is based on Art 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive, which deals with the confidentiality of electronic communications.
Secondly the EC action clearly contemplates not just the UK's misinterpretation of Art 5(3) but also its failure to provide a proper institution to supervise unauthorised interception by the private sector. The Interception Tribunal established under RIPA 2000 is empowered only to look at police and public sector interception of communications. Responsibility should fall to the UK Information Commisioner, but he has seemed unwilling to take up that role vis a vis Phorm to date.
All in all this is excellent news. See more on Phorm in my chapter on targeted advertising in the upcoming (really) Edwards and Waelde eds Law and the Internet (3rd edn) but for the moment see ORG blog on the issue.
All this is ironic as only a week ago, Phorm announced they were really finally about to go live in the UK. With proceedings for illegality from the Commision hovering on the horizon, it will be a brave ISP who launches Phorm right now on their worried customers.
"The Commission has opened an infringement proceeding against the United Kingdom after a series of complaints by UK internet users, and extensive communication of the Commission with UK authorities, about the use of a behavioural advertising technology known as ‘Phorm' by internet service providers. The proceeding addresses several problems with the UK's implementation of EU ePrivacy and personal data protection rules, under which EU countries must ensure, among other things, the confidentiality of communications by prohibiting interception and surveillance without the user's consent. These problems emerged during the Commission’s inquiry into the UK authorities’ action in response to complaints from internet users concerning Phorm."
Vivianne Reding, the EU telecommunications commisioner adds:
“We have been following the Phorm case for some time and have concluded that there are problems in the way the UK has implemented parts of EU rules on the confidentiality of communications. I call on the UK authorities to change their national laws and ensure that national authorities are duly empowered and have proper sanctions at their disposal to enforce EU legislation on the confidentiality of communications. This should allow the UK to respond more vigorously to new challenges to ePrivacy and personal data protection such as those that have arisen in the Phorm case. It should also help reassure UK consumers about their privacy and data protection while surfing the internet.”
This is excellent news for anyone who has followed the Phorm story. First, the EC action will be based on problems with the legality of the general way Phorm works, not the one off blunder of starting trials without getting proper consents last year. In essence the charge - which was explained in a clear memorandum from FIPR by Nicholas Bohm over a year ago - is that Phorm intercept communications between users and websites on the basis of consent from the user, but not from the website. This is wiretapping and/or spyware by any other name, which is why the EU objection is based on Art 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive, which deals with the confidentiality of electronic communications.
Secondly the EC action clearly contemplates not just the UK's misinterpretation of Art 5(3) but also its failure to provide a proper institution to supervise unauthorised interception by the private sector. The Interception Tribunal established under RIPA 2000 is empowered only to look at police and public sector interception of communications. Responsibility should fall to the UK Information Commisioner, but he has seemed unwilling to take up that role vis a vis Phorm to date.
All in all this is excellent news. See more on Phorm in my chapter on targeted advertising in the upcoming (really) Edwards and Waelde eds Law and the Internet (3rd edn) but for the moment see ORG blog on the issue.
All this is ironic as only a week ago, Phorm announced they were really finally about to go live in the UK. With proceedings for illegality from the Commision hovering on the horizon, it will be a brave ISP who launches Phorm right now on their worried customers.
Monday, April 13, 2009
From Twitter for Geriatrics, to #amazonfail
Following on from my post on Facebook stats, here's an interesting set of factoids that came out over the Easter weekend about Twitter.
Some of this ties in rather interestingly with some papers I've seen and discussions I've had at various conferences lately. According to US privacy researcher Jean de Camp (among others), older people are risk averse, reluctant to give up privacy without tradeoff, and untrained in how to use unfamiliar technology effectively and without fear. I would add that adults are nowadays time poor, at least before retirement.
FB appeals to young folk who like tagging themselves in photos, embarrassing themselves and their friends and letting it all hang out if it gets them new dates and new party invites. "Real" blog sites like Live Journal and er, Blogger, appeal to those with time on their hands, or a least, thosd who'd like to be distracted from their actual proper work :) and those who find writing fun not a chore. Second Life appeals to - I don't know, who *does* Second Life appeal to?
But Twitter is deliberately restricted to 140 character "tweets", making it (like texts) swift, economic as to the point, mobile-optimised and thus actually useful - as was said this weekend, it actually has a higher signal to noise ratio than any other SNS (unless you have Geeklawyer on your Friends list ..) - no cat photos, no emo angst - just good info and links. It is unsurprising therefore that it is being swiftly adopted as the SNS of choice by older, more busy, more business-inclined users. It is also lacking in the endless bloatware and (so far) ads of most sites - another plus for the older busier user with no time for a learning curve.
But Twitter also has a killer app - namely, hashtagging - the use of tags like #websci09, #g20, #drwho, etc, in tweets, to aggregate comments by people who may not know each other and not be on each other's "Friendslists". Twitter thus has the ability to provide broad "zeitgeist" coverage of a major event, conference, festival, creative work or even "issue". This, as I and other legal commentators have mentioned lately, has made Twitter suddenly immensely popular at recent academic and techie conferences, where it can provide a running mobile distributed real time annotation and microblog of the events of the conference.
One excellent use Pangloss has seen of this lately was at Wealth of Networks, a low budget London day event which was free to the public and deliberately aimed to include an online audience as well. WON 09 simply had a large screen at the back of the hall where #won09 tweets where streamed in real time, visible to audience and answered from time to time by speakers. (This can be facilitated using TwitterFall.)
And this Easter weekend, when traditional news outlets downsize and the news is mainly of Popes and chocolate, Twitter's users have exposed in stunning style Amazon US's rather clumsy attempt to render invisible multiple bestselling LGBT classics by removing them from their various rankings charts. While none of the traditional UK media outlets except Channel 4 have even picked up in this yet (according to a quick Google), #amazonfail has become the top tag on Twitter, and dragged Amazon into the so-called "court of popular opinion" in a remarkable show of web 2.0 distributed global viral action. Most impressively perhaps, Twitter has mobilised a global work force who have not just passed news on, but combed Amazon's database trying to compile lists of what words have and have not been filtered out.
Whatever you think of Amazon or Twitter's respective politics, this is another clear landmark in the domain of politics, digital activism and distributed "strong" democracy. Pangloss is intrigued to see what happens next..
"The number of people using Twitter in February jumped a dramatic 700% compared to the same month last year, reported ComScore. And who's largely behind that huge increase? Well, it's not the teen set. It's not even twenty-somethings or thirty-somethings, according to the online researcher.
Online researcher ComScore found that people between 45- and 54-years-old are 36% more likely than other age groups to use Twitter, making them the highest rated age group, followed by 25- to 34-year-olds, who are 30% more likely to Tweet out updates about their life and work.
What's notable about this is that traditionally, the people who first populate social networking sites - think Myspace and Facebook - are, well, younger. Much younger. Teens talking about school and dating, and posting pictures of pool parties and proms got Myspace off to its meteoric start.
But older users - you know, the ones who've been able to vote for 15 years or more - are now diving into social networking. Just last month, Hitwise Pty., which measures online traffic, reported that Facebook's audience of people over the ripe old age of 35 increased by 23% in February compared to February 2008. While the social network was launched to serve college students, Facebook has broadly expanded that audience over the past year to include many middle-aged folks.
"The skew towards older visitors, although perhaps initially surprising for a social media site, actually makes more sense than you might think at first," wrote Radwanick. "With so many businesses using Twitter, along with the first generations of Internet users "growing up" and comfortable with technology, this is a sign that the traditional early adopter model might need to be revisited. Not only teenagers and college students can be counted among the 'technologically inclined', which means that trends are much more prone to take off in older age segments than they used to."
Twitter traffic skyrockets, thanks to middle-age tweeters | ITworld "
Some of this ties in rather interestingly with some papers I've seen and discussions I've had at various conferences lately. According to US privacy researcher Jean de Camp (among others), older people are risk averse, reluctant to give up privacy without tradeoff, and untrained in how to use unfamiliar technology effectively and without fear. I would add that adults are nowadays time poor, at least before retirement.
FB appeals to young folk who like tagging themselves in photos, embarrassing themselves and their friends and letting it all hang out if it gets them new dates and new party invites. "Real" blog sites like Live Journal and er, Blogger, appeal to those with time on their hands, or a least, thosd who'd like to be distracted from their actual proper work :) and those who find writing fun not a chore. Second Life appeals to - I don't know, who *does* Second Life appeal to?
But Twitter is deliberately restricted to 140 character "tweets", making it (like texts) swift, economic as to the point, mobile-optimised and thus actually useful - as was said this weekend, it actually has a higher signal to noise ratio than any other SNS (unless you have Geeklawyer on your Friends list ..) - no cat photos, no emo angst - just good info and links. It is unsurprising therefore that it is being swiftly adopted as the SNS of choice by older, more busy, more business-inclined users. It is also lacking in the endless bloatware and (so far) ads of most sites - another plus for the older busier user with no time for a learning curve.
But Twitter also has a killer app - namely, hashtagging - the use of tags like #websci09, #g20, #drwho, etc, in tweets, to aggregate comments by people who may not know each other and not be on each other's "Friendslists". Twitter thus has the ability to provide broad "zeitgeist" coverage of a major event, conference, festival, creative work or even "issue". This, as I and other legal commentators have mentioned lately, has made Twitter suddenly immensely popular at recent academic and techie conferences, where it can provide a running mobile distributed real time annotation and microblog of the events of the conference.
One excellent use Pangloss has seen of this lately was at Wealth of Networks, a low budget London day event which was free to the public and deliberately aimed to include an online audience as well. WON 09 simply had a large screen at the back of the hall where #won09 tweets where streamed in real time, visible to audience and answered from time to time by speakers. (This can be facilitated using TwitterFall.)
And this Easter weekend, when traditional news outlets downsize and the news is mainly of Popes and chocolate, Twitter's users have exposed in stunning style Amazon US's rather clumsy attempt to render invisible multiple bestselling LGBT classics by removing them from their various rankings charts. While none of the traditional UK media outlets except Channel 4 have even picked up in this yet (according to a quick Google), #amazonfail has become the top tag on Twitter, and dragged Amazon into the so-called "court of popular opinion" in a remarkable show of web 2.0 distributed global viral action. Most impressively perhaps, Twitter has mobilised a global work force who have not just passed news on, but combed Amazon's database trying to compile lists of what words have and have not been filtered out.
Whatever you think of Amazon or Twitter's respective politics, this is another clear landmark in the domain of politics, digital activism and distributed "strong" democracy. Pangloss is intrigued to see what happens next..
Thursday, April 09, 2009
French Reject Three Strikes!
This is stunningly unexpected but wonderful news.
"French politicians have unexpected voted against a law that would have forced ISPs to disconnect any one accused of copyright infringement. No proof that would stand up in court would have been need. The final vote was 25 to 15 in the poorly attended National Assembly session."
French government nukes crazy Internet law in open revolt against Sarkozy - Boing Boing
Even better (ha) , Pangloss now has Internet in a Box which works (ie a Vodafone mobile broadband dongle - happy to advertise it as (a) he O2 one I bought first didn;t work and (b) it's the only PAYG on the UK market with non expirable data - so, there may be slightly more frequent updates in future.
Happy Passover/Easter/etc , folks!!
"French politicians have unexpected voted against a law that would have forced ISPs to disconnect any one accused of copyright infringement. No proof that would stand up in court would have been need. The final vote was 25 to 15 in the poorly attended National Assembly session."
French government nukes crazy Internet law in open revolt against Sarkozy - Boing Boing
Even better (ha) , Pangloss now has Internet in a Box which works (ie a Vodafone mobile broadband dongle - happy to advertise it as (a) he O2 one I bought first didn;t work and (b) it's the only PAYG on the UK market with non expirable data - so, there may be slightly more frequent updates in future.
Happy Passover/Easter/etc , folks!!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
SCRIPT-ed Conference: Twitter Madness!
Pangloss is now at the second day of SCRIPT-ed which is, as expected, both fascinating and well attended. Have taken various types of notes and further blawg will emerge. However for meantime , conference is especially notable as hotbed of legal Twittering - check out the search topics button for #scripted.
The last three conferences i've been to - all tech/social media/web affairs - have all had active twittering attendees, which is what has spurred my own current interest in the medium - but this is the first actual LAW conference I recall seeing such activity (also managed via @ahrc_script as aggregating channel). Anyone care to disagree/provide own experience?
My own comments, some more official than others :) can be found at my Twitter account, @lilianedwards and other Twitterers worth checking for here and elsewhere are @technollama (guess who) and @macsithigh (similar) plus ex ORG champion organiser, Becky Hogge, writing as @machine_envy.
The last three conferences i've been to - all tech/social media/web affairs - have all had active twittering attendees, which is what has spurred my own current interest in the medium - but this is the first actual LAW conference I recall seeing such activity (also managed via @ahrc_script as aggregating channel). Anyone care to disagree/provide own experience?
My own comments, some more official than others :) can be found at my Twitter account, @lilianedwards and other Twitterers worth checking for here and elsewhere are @technollama (guess who) and @macsithigh (similar) plus ex ORG champion organiser, Becky Hogge, writing as @machine_envy.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Stross/Doctorow event, May 1 London
This is well worth advertising- wish I could be there!
Charlie Stross and I are doing a benefit talk for the Open Rights Group on May 1 in London, entitled "Resisting the all-seeing eye." Hope to see you there -- Stross is a ball, and ORG is a damned worthy cause, especially in this era of ubiquitous surveillance.
Charlie Stross and I are doing a benefit talk for the Open Rights Group on May 1 in London, entitled "Resisting the all-seeing eye." Hope to see you there -- Stross is a ball, and ORG is a damned worthy cause, especially in this era of ubiquitous surveillance.
From technologies like PGP and Tor to the arguments that will convince people - friends and family as well as media and politicians - to watch out for their digital rights, this event is your anti-surveillance 101.Cory Doctorow - science fiction novelist, blogger and technology activist - and Charlie Stross - science fiction writer and former programmer and pharmacist - will share how and why to control your data. The event will be moderated by Ian Brown - academic, activist and Blogzilla.
The entry price is either joining Open Rights Group - by handing door staff a completed form (link to PDF) - or making a one-off £10 donation on the door. Please register for tickets here. Drinks will be available, as is The Three Kings - a local pub - to continue the debate.
What: Doctorow and Stross: Resisting the all-seeing eye
When: 1830, Friday 1 May 2009
Where: Crypt on the Green, St James Church, Clerkenwell, Clerkenwell Close, London, EC1R 0EA - Map
Facebook reaches 200 million members
Interesting graphics from the New York Times on the rise and rise of Facebook: which has doubled its global membership from 100 to 200 million in eight months - quite remarkable.
Some interesting comments on FB's recent concessions towards user pressure to roll back some of FB's changes of terms and conditions, and unpopular redesign of the web interface.
" “It’s not a democracy,” Mr. Cox says of his company’s relationship with users. “We are here to build an Internet medium for communicating and we think we have enough perspective to do that and be caretakers of that vision.” "
On privacy settings, where FB continue merely to allow users to protect themselves, FB admit only around 20% users use any privacy settings.
Most interestingly (in an article which is at points inches away from a puff post) are FB's attempts to present itself not as a provider of intrusive advertising in a private space but as a promoter of a new style of "interactive advertising" which will maintain momentum even as advertising revenues dry up forother providers dependent on ad revenue such as free webmail services.
"Facebook’s approach is to invite advertisers to join in the conversation. New “engagement” ads ask users to become fans of products and companies — sometimes with the promise of discounts. If a person gives in, that commercial allegiance is then broadcast to all of the person’s friends on the site.
A new kind of engagement ad, now being tested, will invite people to vote — “what’s your favorite color M&M?” for example — and brands will pay every time a Facebook member participates.
“We are trying to provide the antidote for the consumer rebellion against interruptive advertising,” says Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook’s chief operating officer and Mr. Zuckerberg’s business consigliere."..Facebook recently introduced advertising tools to let companies focus on users based on the language they use on the site and their geographic location. So, for example, an advertiser can now tailor a message to the Latino community in Los Angeles or French speakers in Montreal." "
Pangloss sez: sounds like an attempt to repackage the much disliked Facebook Beacon, and step away from the bad press around Phorm in particular and targeted advertising in general. But is it more than puff? Even if users get to vote on their favourite M and M flavour, they will still not get to vote on the conditions under which FB pass on their personal data to third party marketers, despite the ra ra of consultation on the FB principles (see previous post).
Notably FB say they will never charge users for part or all of the FB services despite the credit crunch . However they do not say they will never pass on non-anonymised personal data to third parties, something which is currently barred by their own terms but could change in future (and is not barred by proposed FB Principle 3 either).
On the other hand the idea that users might actually be paid for giving their public allegiance to a product is interesting. Only the other week Pangloss vigorously denied the market would ever support paying for personal data (other than in costs-nothing considerations like air miles and loyalty card points) when it already routinely collects it for free. Maybe this is the first glint of a market sea change?
Full article here.
Friday, March 27, 2009
Just has to be quoted
The venerable IPKat has stepped away from his normal utter respectability to nail my also esteemed colleague Geeklawyer:
"The IPKat has a soft spot for the GeekLawyer's Blog. GeekLawyer (left), whose potent combination of outspoken honesty and irredeemably bad taste makes him unquestionably the Jade Goody of the IP blog world, displayed his sensitive side this week with this report and podcast on his friend Bill Patry's SCL talk in memory of the late Sir Hugh Laddie, whose potent combination of pungent wit and guts to deploy it to maximum effect made him ... well, never mind. "
Pangloss is now enriched with Geeklawyer's enormous um ruminations on his blog, Facebook AND Twitter. Shortly he will talk to me in my dreams..
THis has been a Squid Friday production, courtesy of Nat Express Wi Fi and an unexpectedly and gloriously quiet train (hey, credit where's credit due for once. Am I Twittering on Pangloss now? Oh noes!)
"The IPKat has a soft spot for the GeekLawyer's Blog. GeekLawyer (left), whose potent combination of outspoken honesty and irredeemably bad taste makes him unquestionably the Jade Goody of the IP blog world, displayed his sensitive side this week with this report and podcast on his friend Bill Patry's SCL talk in memory of the late Sir Hugh Laddie, whose potent combination of pungent wit and guts to deploy it to maximum effect made him ... well, never mind. "
Pangloss is now enriched with Geeklawyer's enormous um ruminations on his blog, Facebook AND Twitter. Shortly he will talk to me in my dreams..
THis has been a Squid Friday production, courtesy of Nat Express Wi Fi and an unexpectedly and gloriously quiet train (hey, credit where's credit due for once. Am I Twittering on Pangloss now? Oh noes!)
Democracy Comes to Facebook?
Facebook is soliciting public comments on proposed new terms and conditions - see
Facebook Principles
Rights and Responsibilities
Pangloss is getting on train to Edinburgh to go to SCRIPT-ed, and will read them then to see if they actually change anything useful. But the sheer act of undertaking such consultation with a 100 million plus userbase, even if it is only PR, is really quite a remarkable landmark in the governance of web 2.0.
Also taking the Database State Report, the Digital Rights Agency consultation and various other reports. There will be blogging!
Finally, I note OUT_Law agrees with me that Google Street View is not illegal though for different reasons. Struan focuses on the recent UK ECHR-based case law on invasion of privacy as "breach of confidence", noting that the JK Rowling case seems to confirm that the UK courts do not recognise a right not to be photographed in a public place unless you, the data subject, are the focus of the camera's attention. Pangloss is less keen on this argument than her own resting on Art 7(f) of the DPD, (surprise), partly because the Art 8 ECHR law is in such flux and partly because it reinforces the data protection equivalent case of Durant which many DP commentators feel was wrongly decided. but it's a good piece : read it.
Facebook Principles
Rights and Responsibilities
Pangloss is getting on train to Edinburgh to go to SCRIPT-ed, and will read them then to see if they actually change anything useful. But the sheer act of undertaking such consultation with a 100 million plus userbase, even if it is only PR, is really quite a remarkable landmark in the governance of web 2.0.
Also taking the Database State Report, the Digital Rights Agency consultation and various other reports. There will be blogging!
Finally, I note OUT_Law agrees with me that Google Street View is not illegal though for different reasons. Struan focuses on the recent UK ECHR-based case law on invasion of privacy as "breach of confidence", noting that the JK Rowling case seems to confirm that the UK courts do not recognise a right not to be photographed in a public place unless you, the data subject, are the focus of the camera's attention. Pangloss is less keen on this argument than her own resting on Art 7(f) of the DPD, (surprise), partly because the Art 8 ECHR law is in such flux and partly because it reinforces the data protection equivalent case of Durant which many DP commentators feel was wrongly decided. but it's a good piece : read it.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Google Street View - Up Your Street?
Many of my friends and colleagues have been having fun with Google Street View since it went live in the UK last week. My social networking Friends lists are full of people exclaiming "OH MY GOD that's my house!!!" or happily pointing out their car, their garden and in one case, their boyfriend leaning out of the window. Those who live in cities not yet rolled out, bemoan their luck and count how many yards they are from the Googlezone.
Others are not so happy. Privacy International, a well respected privacy watchdog, have already announced their intention to take Google to court on the grounds that they are breaking data protection law, and have made a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner.
Says the Beeb, "Privacy International wants the ICO to look again at how Street View works.
So is G. Street View ("manic street features" as another BBC piece gleefully calls it) the greatest free of cost and publcly available innovation to hit online mapping ever, or another piece in the jigsaw of ubiquitous commercial and government surveillance in the UK?
Pangloss admits to have been far more excited than worried when she first got the news. Google have invested a pretty large amount of effort into protecting privacy, having learnt from earlier protests and roll outs in the US as well as accepting the reality of ldata protection law in Europe. Faces and number plates have been, with some fairly low margin of error pixelated out. There are indeed errors: we have already had reports of people asking to have maps taken down because they depicted them being sick outside a pub or visiting a well known brothel. But Google have also provided an extremely easy to use take-down request system. Have they done enough?
My esteemed colleague Ian Brown of the OII doesn't think so (and repeated these feelings during a brisk debate last night at a post privacy conference dinner :) Said Ian to the Beeb:
"They [Google] should have thought more carefully about how they designed the service to avoid exactly this sort of thing."
We need a real debate here about whether privacy invasion should be regarded as purely an individual issue or a societal problem; similarly whether GSV brings advantages to society as a whole (surely?) and do these outweigh the privacy loss to the few individuals. If GSV sparks this debate it will in itself have been of value.
Ian's compromise solution above - essentially, get it right the first time so as to minimise privacy intrustions requiring post factum take down - is a pragmatic one but does not in essence meet the above theoretical problem. It raises another pragmatic problem too - Google has already spent vast amounts providing a fantastic service for free to the UK public. Yes, they wil gain from ad revenue - but this is still an enormous free gift to the public as a whole. How much more money would it be reasonable to ask them to spend to meet the needs of the very few?
Taking two pictures of every location would presumably have doubled costs. Would fewer cities then be rolled out? Would there be more social and digital exclusion? Will rural areas ever be included in fact? and would someone living next to a person who had had "his" street view pulled out by justifiably irritated at his social exclusion? Should the invaded privacy rights of a few be allowed to stifle technological innovation for everyone? If we consider the P2P debate where the same issue arises - should theeconomic interests of the few in the entertainment industries be allowed to stifle useful innovation for the rest of us? - then generally the informed answer is no. There are many more societal cost/benefit balances to be thought about here.
In the meantime, Pangloss is going to go off to yet another workshop to talk about privacy and trust in next generation networks. Do we indeed trust Google to know where we live and to respect our privacy? Most do but some don't, it appears. Yet Google cannot automate, and thus provide at reasonable cost, the amazing services it delivers for "free" , unless we all agree on this in adavance, or at least are presumed to agree, subject to later opt out. This may be becoming a key problem of the digital era :)
Others are not so happy. Privacy International, a well respected privacy watchdog, have already announced their intention to take Google to court on the grounds that they are breaking data protection law, and have made a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner.
Says the Beeb, "Privacy International wants the ICO to look again at how Street View works.
"The ICO has repeatedly made clear that it believes that in Street View the necessary safeguards are in place to protect people's privacy," said Google.
Privacy International (PI) director Simon Davies said his organisation had filed the complaint given the "clear embarrassment and damage" Street View had caused to many Britons."
So is G. Street View ("manic street features" as another BBC piece gleefully calls it) the greatest free of cost and publcly available innovation to hit online mapping ever, or another piece in the jigsaw of ubiquitous commercial and government surveillance in the UK?
Pangloss admits to have been far more excited than worried when she first got the news. Google have invested a pretty large amount of effort into protecting privacy, having learnt from earlier protests and roll outs in the US as well as accepting the reality of ldata protection law in Europe. Faces and number plates have been, with some fairly low margin of error pixelated out. There are indeed errors: we have already had reports of people asking to have maps taken down because they depicted them being sick outside a pub or visiting a well known brothel. But Google have also provided an extremely easy to use take-down request system. Have they done enough?
My esteemed colleague Ian Brown of the OII doesn't think so (and repeated these feelings during a brisk debate last night at a post privacy conference dinner :) Said Ian to the Beeb:
"They [Google] should have thought more carefully about how they designed the service to avoid exactly this sort of thing."
| |
Dr Brown said Google could have taken images twice, on different days, so offending images could have been easily replaced and protected privacy better.
Google says it has gone to great lengths to ensure privacy, suggesting that the service only shows imagery already visible from public thoroughfares."
There are a number of ways to frame this debate. One is the question of opt in to privacy, versus opt out. In the same way that Google Library has tried to push copyright discourse from opt in - consnt by authors to copying of their work - to opt out - asking to be left out of the scheme if not wanting copies to be made (and failed - given the recent settlement?) - it is arguably trying to do the same with privacy here.
If privacy is indeed a fundamental human right, then it can be argued that in principle no one should have to be exposed to even a low risk of an intrusion of privacy by error (let's leave the debate on what that exactly is, plus the debate on how far your privacy stretches in a public place, aside for the minute) and then have to request take down; instead`they should always be asked to give consent a priori. This is probably in gist PI's argument as to why what Google is doing is illegal.
In strict law, Pangloss is not really sure if this is right: the UK DP Act (and the EC DP Directive) do not always demand consent to processing of personal data - there is a well known exception which allows processing to be undertaken without consent if it is in pursuance of a legitimate aim of the data processor (Google) and does not at the same time unreasonably prejudice human rights (DPD, Art 7(f)).
A "few dozen" requests seem to have been made for take down, according to the BBC. If we knew how many views there are on GSV we could work out what percent have been privacy invading.It is probably a very very low percent. But is this the right way to construct the Art 7(f) balance? or should we be looking only at the degree of privacy invasion suffered by each individual data subject concerned - how much they lost - their wife, their job?We need a real debate here about whether privacy invasion should be regarded as purely an individual issue or a societal problem; similarly whether GSV brings advantages to society as a whole (surely?) and do these outweigh the privacy loss to the few individuals. If GSV sparks this debate it will in itself have been of value.
Ian's compromise solution above - essentially, get it right the first time so as to minimise privacy intrustions requiring post factum take down - is a pragmatic one but does not in essence meet the above theoretical problem. It raises another pragmatic problem too - Google has already spent vast amounts providing a fantastic service for free to the UK public. Yes, they wil gain from ad revenue - but this is still an enormous free gift to the public as a whole. How much more money would it be reasonable to ask them to spend to meet the needs of the very few?
Taking two pictures of every location would presumably have doubled costs. Would fewer cities then be rolled out? Would there be more social and digital exclusion? Will rural areas ever be included in fact? and would someone living next to a person who had had "his" street view pulled out by justifiably irritated at his social exclusion? Should the invaded privacy rights of a few be allowed to stifle technological innovation for everyone? If we consider the P2P debate where the same issue arises - should theeconomic interests of the few in the entertainment industries be allowed to stifle useful innovation for the rest of us? - then generally the informed answer is no. There are many more societal cost/benefit balances to be thought about here.
In the meantime, Pangloss is going to go off to yet another workshop to talk about privacy and trust in next generation networks. Do we indeed trust Google to know where we live and to respect our privacy? Most do but some don't, it appears. Yet Google cannot automate, and thus provide at reasonable cost, the amazing services it delivers for "free" , unless we all agree on this in adavance, or at least are presumed to agree, subject to later opt out. This may be becoming a key problem of the digital era :)
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Great News Euro GikII PHiles!
"GikII 4, Amsterdam 2009
The fourth installment of GikII will take place on 17-18 September 2009 in Amsterdam, hosted by the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam, in partnership with Creative Commons Netherlands. "
Yes I have been a bit quiet - I have moved house (yet again.) Lots of stuff coming soon :)
Also apologies to any reader who had planned to see me in Aberdeen this week - this had to be cancelled for a combination of ill health and transport problems. we hope to reschedule next academic year.
The fourth installment of GikII will take place on 17-18 September 2009 in Amsterdam, hosted by the Institute for Information Law (IViR), University of Amsterdam, in partnership with Creative Commons Netherlands. "
Yes I have been a bit quiet - I have moved house (yet again.) Lots of stuff coming soon :)
Also apologies to any reader who had planned to see me in Aberdeen this week - this had to be cancelled for a combination of ill health and transport problems. we hope to reschedule next academic year.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Facebook U-Turn on New Terms and Conditions
Following Facebook's recent climbdown on their change of terms & conditions to continue claiming a license to use and publish user data even after users delete their profile, here's a few comments from me in New Scientist.
As I said to the interviewer but which failed to get quoted, the real interest in this little storm in a digital tea cup has been in demonstrating what lawyers know but users rarely think of, namely that Facebook can change their terms any time they damn well like, to be more - or usually less - privacy-friendly.
At the moment, FB's privacy policy declares that users only consent to the sharing of their data with advertisers and marketers in anonymised or aggregated form - but there is no reason why that can't change any day to FB selling full details of user's personal data. And given the downturn in the advertising fortunes of web 2.0, and the fact that Facebook anecdotally still makes almost no money despite its huge userbase and is worth far less than was once thought, can that day be far away?
Ownership of personal data and control over user's own generated content are issue that could well be regulated by model clauses in the current boom in Codes of Practice for social networking sites: instead unsurprisingly they tend to concentrate on kiddy safety - see eg the latest EC effort in this direction. THe proposals do however include the useful provision that the profiles of all users under 18 should be set to "friends only" by default. (This ignores the need for protection of adult privacy though.)
In any case, even sales of aggregate anonymised data now pose a danger to privacy which current DP law wholly fails to notice. At the recent Information Security Best Practices conference 2009 run by Wharton College, Pennsylvania, several security expert speakers in te Data Mining and Privacy panel emphasised the improvements in deriving personal data from aggregate data. The bottom line appears to be that anonymised data as a concept is heading for extinction. Interesting times.
(And despite all this Pangloss is still on FB, albeit behind a lot of privacy locks. Do as I say not as I do, kiddoes.)
Schedule update:
24 February , PLC seminar: "Social Networking Sites, Privacy and Other Legal Aspects", sold out but contact Claire.Dine@practicallaw.com for cancellations.
4 March , Aberdeen University Law Faculty, "Phishing In A Cyber Credit Crunch World".
18-20 March, WSRI Web Science Conference, Athens, chairing panel on "“What can Web Science Do for the Privacy of Data Subjects?: Law, Privacy and Data Retention in a Post 9/11 World”
23 March, London, attending Privacy Value Network Advisory Board.
30-31 March: speaking at SCRIPT-ed Governance of New Technologies Conference, Edinburgh
22-23 April: speaking at BILETA 2009 - The 24th Annual Conference, Winchester
That'll do for now:)
As I said to the interviewer but which failed to get quoted, the real interest in this little storm in a digital tea cup has been in demonstrating what lawyers know but users rarely think of, namely that Facebook can change their terms any time they damn well like, to be more - or usually less - privacy-friendly.
At the moment, FB's privacy policy declares that users only consent to the sharing of their data with advertisers and marketers in anonymised or aggregated form - but there is no reason why that can't change any day to FB selling full details of user's personal data. And given the downturn in the advertising fortunes of web 2.0, and the fact that Facebook anecdotally still makes almost no money despite its huge userbase and is worth far less than was once thought, can that day be far away?
Ownership of personal data and control over user's own generated content are issue that could well be regulated by model clauses in the current boom in Codes of Practice for social networking sites: instead unsurprisingly they tend to concentrate on kiddy safety - see eg the latest EC effort in this direction. THe proposals do however include the useful provision that the profiles of all users under 18 should be set to "friends only" by default. (This ignores the need for protection of adult privacy though.)
In any case, even sales of aggregate anonymised data now pose a danger to privacy which current DP law wholly fails to notice. At the recent Information Security Best Practices conference 2009 run by Wharton College, Pennsylvania, several security expert speakers in te Data Mining and Privacy panel emphasised the improvements in deriving personal data from aggregate data. The bottom line appears to be that anonymised data as a concept is heading for extinction. Interesting times.
(And despite all this Pangloss is still on FB, albeit behind a lot of privacy locks. Do as I say not as I do, kiddoes.)
Schedule update:
24 February , PLC seminar: "Social Networking Sites, Privacy and Other Legal Aspects", sold out but contact Claire.Dine@practicallaw.com for cancellations.
4 March , Aberdeen University Law Faculty, "Phishing In A Cyber Credit Crunch World".
18-20 March, WSRI Web Science Conference, Athens, chairing panel on "“What can Web Science Do for the Privacy of Data Subjects?: Law, Privacy and Data Retention in a Post 9/11 World”
23 March, London, attending Privacy Value Network Advisory Board.
30-31 March: speaking at SCRIPT-ed Governance of New Technologies Conference, Edinburgh
22-23 April: speaking at BILETA 2009 - The 24th Annual Conference, Winchester
That'll do for now:)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
When MI5 tell you the state is spying on its citizens too much...
.. they're probably right?
Stella Rimington, our very own real life M, in unlikeliest declaration of support for the forces of light of this or any other week :)
" “It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state.”
Stella Rimington, our very own real life M, in unlikeliest declaration of support for the forces of light of this or any other week :)
" “It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state.”
Monday, February 16, 2009
It's Sooooooooo GikII!!
I'm very happy to announce that the success of GikII over the last three years has spawned an Australian spin-off, to be known as SoGikII. More details to follow, but here's early warning so you can start saving your pennies:)
Head South, Get Your Geek On - its SoGikII.
SoGikII will be chaired by David Vaile and Alana Maurushat, University of New South Wales, with assistance from Lilian Edwards, Professor of Internet Law, University of Southampton.
So if combining cyborgs, post-structuralism, the absurdity of patent law and beach views sounds like your idea of fun, please email your abstract of 500 words or less to Alana (a.maurushat@unsw.edu.au) and David (d.vaile@unsw.edu.au) by March 31, 2009. Notification of acceptance will be by email in April. A prize for the best lolcat will also be awarded.
www.cyberlawcentre.org/gikii/ "
Meanwhile as SoGikII goes Down Under, Original GikII goes European - with arrangements now almost in place to take it to Amsterdam, hosted by the esteemed institute, the IVIR. We hope this will open up GikII to exciting new Continental scholars as well as the old crew! Exact dates in mid September to be announced shortly.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Countdown to the Digital Britain report..
Latest from The Times:
"Internet service providers will not be forced to disconnect users who
repeatedly flout the law by illegally sharing music and video files, The
Times has learnt.
Andy Burnham, the Culture Secretary, said last year that the Government
had "serious legislative intent" to compel internet companies to cut off
customers who ignore warnings not to pirate material.
However, in an interview with The Times, David Lammy, the Intellectual
Property Minister, said that the Government had ruled out legislating to
force ISPs to disconnect such users. "
The official announcement's now been delayed again, and against all rumour was not trailed at last week's Oxford Media conference. Looks like BERR're finding this one a wee bit tricky. Could that have anything to do with the music industry forcing Virgin to abandon its legal P2P offering? Remember the deal the Memorandum of Understanding offered back in July was new sanctions against filesharers, but only in return for new business models and in particular new legal ways to access music online using P2P .. not much sign of that..
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Google times are here again
Pangloss has found (via Google, how else!?) a rather interesting blog called http://blogoscoped.com/.
It contains a little gem called Google Robot which certainly makes you wonder just how sensible our current legal interpretations of the Google spider are.
"Frequently Asked Questions
John Ozimek of the Register whose coverage has lately been excellent, says "Undoubtedly, 2009 is going to be the year of the internet filter." Hmm.
It contains a little gem called Google Robot which certainly makes you wonder just how sensible our current legal interpretations of the Google spider are.
"Frequently Asked Questions
Last update: November 1st, 2030
What are Google Robots?
Google Robots are our human-like machines that walk the earth to record information. They do no harm, and they do not invade your privacy.
What are Google Robots good for?
Our Google Life search website is powered by the Google Robot crawler program. On the Google Life website at life.google.com, you can:
- Find out what menus the local restaurant offers at what prices
- See a perfect 3D shape of all houses in your city
- Know how crowded the bar is you want to go to tonight
- Know what items to find at your local mall
- Find out if your library has a certain book available (Also see: What's a book?)
- Know what you said and who you met 3 weeks ago (this feature is available only to My Public Life™ subscribers)
- Locate your friends (this feature is only available if your friends subscribed to My Public Life™)
- And much more!
I saw a Google Robot entering a library and reading books in it. Is that legal?
Our Google Robots do not record private information. As the books in a library are considered to be public, our Google Robots reserve the right to scan them. However, we do respect the copyright of individual works, and will only show a "fair use" portion on our website." "
John Ozimek of the Register whose coverage has lately been excellent, says "Undoubtedly, 2009 is going to be the year of the internet filter." Hmm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)