Richard Wilkinson, a co-author of The Spirit Level, presents one of the Ted Talks on income inequality and how selfishness and greed hurt everyone, poor and rich alike.
We feel instinctively that societies with huge income gaps are somehow going wrong. Richard Wilkinson charts the hard data on economic inequality, and shows what gets worse when rich and poor are too far apart: real effects on health, lifespan, even such basic values as trust.
Watch it. (17 mins) it’s worth it.
Every time there’s a new government elected, each of the Ministries and departments provide their new Minister with a briefing on the policy issues and decisions required in their portfolio. They are called Briefings to Incoming Ministers (or BIMs)
This year, some Ministers have chosen to withhold (or redact) substantial amounts of information in these briefings. The MFAT and Communications and IT portfolios are two examples. There are more.
To understand the importance of the BIM and the basis upon which information is withheld from public scrutiny it’s worth reading this thoughtful post from Lawyer John Edwards:
Briefings to the Incoming Minister – Going Backwards From Openness to Secrecy?
In the months leading up to a general election, officials start preparing their Briefing to the Incoming Minister (BIM). In the months after the general election, these BIMs start getting released.
There are no strict rules about what goes into a BIM, and no special provisions about how or when they are released. They are produced under a convention recorded in the Cabinet Manual that “when a new Minister is appointed, the chief executive of the department concerned must ensure that, as soon as the Minister takes up office, he or she is briefed on the department and the portfolio”.
They range in size and approach, from a comprehensive stocktake of what is happening in the department or Ministry to a manifesto of the ideological drivers of the officials favoured approach to the particular policy.
Edwards advises that:
Anyone who is interested in seeing more of the BIMs than the Government has seen fit to release should simply write to the Minister concerned, and if they stick to their predetermined position about the deletions, ask the Ombudsman to investigate. Perhaps then we will have a clearer idea about the expectations next time around.
I’ve been looking forward to taking on Amy Adams, the new Minister of ICT. I’ve been impressed by her no- nonsense approach to things and her obvious intellect.
I was hoping for an opponent on the other side of the House who would grasp that technology had the capacity to transform our economy. I wasn’t holding out a lot of hope that she’d take seriously the importance of the social objectives of providing more access to technology, other than to pay lipservice, which is pretty much what Steven Joyce did.
But I was pretty appalled today to receive the incoming briefing document from the Ministry of Economic Development to the new Minsiter, which sets out all the major policy issues that lie ahead and provides a list of the pending decisions and actions over the next six months.
Great tracts of the former (policy issues) were removed from the document under the Official Information Act.
When it came to the decision and actions required over the next six months, there was a gaping two page hole in the document.
VOTE COMMUNICATIONS: BRIEFING FOR THE INCOMING MINISTER 2011
MED1245438 Page 22 of 34
MED1284612
PENDING DECISIONS OR ACTIONS REQUIRED IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS
[Withheld under sections 9(2)(f)(iv) and 9(2)(g)(i) of the Official Information Act 1982]
blank blank blank………
I’ve talked to a few industry people about this today. It’s unprecedented I think. Highly unusual and you’ve got to ask what on earth is so secretive about Minister Adams’ workplan and pending decisions that they all need to be kept secret?
Remember this is taxpayers money that funds Vote Communications. The signs are not good that the taxpayers will get the opportunity to scrutinise how their needs are best being met.
The intro by MED to the briefing reveals that the three big issues are these:
What can be so sensitive about these issues that the discussion and debate around decision-making can’t be held in public.
The previous Minister Steven Joyce maintained an arrogant and unresponsive approach to the public, and now it appears that Amy Adams may do the same.
When you make something secret you should have a good reason. The public must be reassured that decisions being made by this Minister are not favouring commercial interests over the public good.
Hopefully an OIA will shine some sunlight on this.
Have been sent this link several times in the last few minutes.
Will post again on this issue as there’s quite a bit to discuss.
Has the internet decimated the entertainment industry or are we living in a new renaissance for both content creators and consumers…
Obama recently scuttled SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the US, but it’s likely another bill will emerge that gives the entertainment industry mroe control over internet distribution of material.
In NZ, the TPPA talks have highlighted increasing concern around our ability as a nation to control our own innovation and creative works and raised questions about our ability to implement our own copyright laws.
Today it appears that the traditional vested interests behind the entertainment industry have been fudging things a bit:
The Sky Is Rising!
For years now, the legacy entertainment industry has been predicting its own demise, claiming that the rise of technology, by enabling easy duplication and sharing — and thus copyright infringement — is destroying their bottom line. If left unchecked, they say, it is not only they that will suffer, but also the content creators, who will be deprived of a means to make a living. And, with artists lacking an incentive to create, no more art will be produced, starving our culture. While it seems obvious to many that this could not possibly be true, since creators and performers of artistic content existed long before the gatekeepers ever did, we’ve looked into the numbers to get an honest picture of the state of things. What we found is that not only is the sky not falling, as some would have us believe, but it appears that we’re living through an incredible period of abundance and opportunity, with more people producing more content and more money being made than ever before. As it turns out… The Sky Is Rising!
I haven’t read it fully yet, but am relieved there is some decent data emerging at last to demonstrate the clear success of new business models which provide content via the internet quickly and at a low cost.
I hope NZ won’t get left behind
Though our aim divine/
The delivery is human/
A labour of love
A haiku about Red Alert dedicated to John Hartevelt
The ODT reports today yesterday:
Dunedin-based technology company PocketSmith is one of six finalists in the BNZ Start-Up Alley competition.
The competition is to help grow New Zealand’s web and technology start-up businesses.
Pocketsmith has a competitive personal finance management tool that allows users to track their expenses.
Pocketsmith is part of the University of Otago’s Centre for Innovation Distiller community.
I first visited Pocketsmith at the Distiller about two year’s ago. They were starting to make an impact then. The Distiller is a group of people (they call themselves technopreneurs) who work on their own projects, but work co-operatively and sometimes collaborate. They share space, ideas out of their creative enviroment comes great ideas. They call it social entrepeneurship.
NBR wrote about them mid last year;
PocketSmith co-founder Jason Leong told NBR his company’s success was all down to the power of open source development, the software-as-a-service (or SaaS) model for delivering your product over the internet, and the viral power of social networking and professional community sites.
Read more about how they have become a success story here.
Good on them.
This morning, this is what David Farrar blogged on the US SOPA Bill which was blocked by Obama:
My views are simple. No Government should censor the Internet.
Earlier this morning he was on Radio NZ commenting (in his role as right wing commentator) on the NZ on Air fiasco saying it is:
”perfectly reasonable for programmes that NZ on Air fund to have small scheduling restrictions during politically sensitive periods.
So it’s ok to censor the broadcaster and use the government agency that funds it to restrict New Zealander’s access to well produced evidence-based documentaries that raise legitimate concerns about important issues facing the nation during an election campaign.
But we mustn’t censor the internet. According to Farrar.
Inconsistent. I don’t agree with the scheduling of many programmes on television. I certainly don’t think that politicians should be interferring in, when and if material can be shown on television during an election campaign. If the issue was lack of balance, then there are places to complain. The BSA and the Electoral Commission. That’s what should have happened.
NZ on Air should never have got involved in the issue. That they did, appears to be because of inappropriate politically motivated pressure.
Suggestions that publicly funded programmes should not be aired during an election campaign reveal serious cracks in our democratic process and must be resisted.
Last night a proposed law passing through the United States Congress was blocked by Obama.
California congressman Darrell Issa, an opponent of Sopa, the Stop Online Piracy Act, said he had been told by House majority leader Eric Cantor that there would be no vote unless there is consensus on the bill.
Congressional leaders are preparing to shelve controversial legislation aimed at tackling online piracy after president Barack Obama said he would not support it.
The tech community has fought hard to stop Sopa and a rival bill, Protect IP, also known as the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act, or the e-Parasite act. Websites including Reddit and Wikipedia are planning to “go dark” on Wednesday in protest against the legislation. Issa said he remained concerned about Protect IP, which will go before the Senate on 24 January.
But both bills now look severely damaged after the White House came out firmly against their biggest proposals at the weekend.
“Let us be clear – online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle-class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs,” the White House said in its first official comment on Sopa and Protect IP.
However, the White House said it would not support legislation that “reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risks or undermines the dynamic, innovative global internet.”
Though it doesn’t get a lot of coverage in mainstream media, and it’s not a well understood issue, the battle between the entertainment industry and the technology sector has been raging for some time. (Rupert Murdoch has weighed into it in the last few days as well). The biggest manifestation of that battle has been the row over online piracy and the punitive laws that countries across the world are being pressured to comply with. Laws that include a provision to disconnect people from the internet from infringing copyright. Laws concerning patents are also under the spotlight.
In New Zealand, there’s a law waiting to complete its passage through parliament which excludes computer software from being patented. The Commerce Committee recommendation, which was accepted by the then Minister Simon Power, believed this would free up NZ software developers to be innovative without fear of being trampled on by big patent suits. Copyright was seen as the appropriate form of protection for software (which is built on code), along with music, books and other creative endeavours. But that law has sat on our books for more than 18 months.
There have been worrying signs for a while that New Zealand’s creative and innovation sector could get caught up in the international battle being waged.
In December, Paul Matthews, the head of the NZ Computer Society wrote a column about how how changes to NZ’s patent law could be caught up in the negotiations going on for the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).
I’ve been watching the SOPA issue develop over the summer with concern. Others may have views about the implications for NZ and our part of the world.
Thankfully Obama has stepped into the fray. The issues are complex. Online piracy is an issue. But it’s mostly an issue because ordinary people can’t access the material they want easily through legal means. Sensible laws are required to protect creators and their intellectual property. Laws and policies are also required to help promote new business models that use the enormous power of the internet to give people more access to services and material and to help spark innovation.
What lies behind this is about who controls the internet. Thankfully the White House seems to understand that.
The two bills aim to tackle online piracy by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites distributing stolen materials. The bills would also allow people and companies to sue if their copyright was being infringed.
The White House expressed concern about both these elements and about passing legislation that threatened the openness of the internet. In the online statement it said any new legislation must be “narrowly targeted”.
Vikram Kumar, the CEO of InternetNZ, a respected and thoughtful think tank, also wrote about the two US laws in yesterday’s NBR. He warned of threats to our national interest by:
laws written by powerful corporates and expeditiously passed into law word-for-word.
He was echoing the sentiments of internet guru Lawrence Lessig, who spoke at last year’s Nethui in NZ about the corruption destroying the United States’ democratic foundations.
Chris Keall from NBR wrote about the streetfight battle in yesterday’s NBR.
These issues aren’t always easy to get your head around. But like most things they have some principles at their core. Ownership of intellectual property is one. Intellectual property means exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions.
Yesterday I got a tip off that the mysterious visit to our shores by a high powered US delegation of congress and senate reps last week wasn’t just about a first-hand look at Christchurch’s earthquake damage. Talks were also being held about the TPPA. Who with? and what was the substance?
I think New Zealand needs to consider its own best interests and the importance of our intellectual property and innovation to our own economy. Quantifying that should be a priority. We can’t sell ourselves short.
We are a lot more than a high protein export nation. I’d like more discussion about this issue across the parliament. The copyright debates we’ve had in the last few years are just a subset of a much bigger economic discussion. What is the value of our IP to our nation?
Profiled in today’s Dom Post Nathan Li’s online application Educa, which allows parents to see and comment on their pre-schooler’s e-portfolio – an online record of their development, including photos and videos, created by teachers at her preschool.
Li developed Educa with input from early childhood teachers and parents, and launched the web application in April last year.
22 pre-schools using it so far. They are hoping to expand into Australia.
Wish this was available when my kids were in pre-school.
We need more Nathan Li’s.
Dene Mackenzie writes in the ODT about Jade Software and their innovative JOOB product. The story is a few days old but worth reading. Think they deserve the award.
We need more companies like Jade. Hopefully who think it’s worth it to stay based in NZ.
A year ago, Jade Software was preparing to invade Silicon Valley and California. After battling through the Christchurch earthquakes, unprecedented travel and successfully establishing a beach-head in California, Jade Software has earned the title of the Otago Daily Times Southern Business of the Year.
Opening an office during the year in San Francisco paid dividends for Jade Software, but there is much more to the company than just establishing a beach-head in the United States.
The US was seen as the big unknown for the Christchurch-based company which has a significant operation in Dunedin.
The product at the forefront of the big push into the US was JOOB, with which jade had previously been successful when presenting at a huge technology fair in Berlin.
I’ve had a bit of contact with Birgitta Jónsdóttir. Would like more. She’s an advocate for open government. And I agree with her view that it is essential to make” the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute”.
Birgitta is an advocate for more direct democracy and some of her views are quite radical. I think they’re worth thinking about and discussing. I think the way we practice politics needs to change. I’ve never made a secret of that. It’s threatening to politicians and the parliamentary structures. But while there’s a lot of good in our existing structures, and most MPs work damn hard and are committed to what they do, there’s also a lot of bullshit that goes on.
People know that. I agree that MPs need more direct accountability. The review of MMP will no doubt throw up a few ideas. Constitutional change is inevitable in New Zealand. It’s a matter of when.
Having a real debate about how we could improve our democracy for New Zealand’s sake is surely a good thing.
Here’s a start. Birgitta wrote this piece in The Guardian in November 2011
The Dutch minister of internal affairs said at a speech during free press day this year: “Law-making is like a sausage, no one really wants to know what is put in it.” He was referring to how expensive the Freedom of Information Act is, and was suggesting that journalists shouldn’t really be asking for so much governmental information. His words exposed one of the core problems in our democracies: too many people don’t care what goes into the sausage, not even the so-called law-makers, the parliamentarians.
If the 99% want to reclaim our power, our societies, we have to start somewhere. An important first step is to sever the ties between the corporations and the state by making the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute. We have to know what is in that law sausage; the monopoly of the corporate lobbyist has to end – especially when it comes to laws regulating banking and the internet.
The Icelandic nation only consists 311,000 souls, so we have a relatively small bureaucratic body and can move quicker then in most countries. Many have seen Iceland as the ideal country for experimentation for new solutions in an era of transformation. I agree.
Iceland’s experience is fairly extreme. But their response to crisis has some lessons for us all.
I like the analogy of the sausage. Especially given it’s summer and we’re all eating a few no doubt
Counting our blessings as we move into 2012.
It’s been a hard year for so many New Zealanders. But we are a plucky country.
There’s lots to be done this (next) year. Let’s take more care of each other. Life’s too short not to.
I’ve chosen three songs to mark the occasion. Happy New Year x
As signalled in a previous post, I’m having a bit of a re-think about Red Alert. In particular, how to build on its strengths and address some of the issues that have arisen in the last couple of years.
In the last term of parliament, Red Alert was a bit of an experiment in how NZ Labour politicians could communicate directly with the public and have some honest conversations about policy, issues of the day and expound our thoughts in general.
It was a bit ad hoc, which was largely a strength as the blog is pretty widely acknowledged as being real and honest. The voices on Red Alert are MPs. They aren’t paid staff. That should continue.
However, there’s always room for improvement and here’s a few preliminary thoughts from me. I welcome your constructive input.
I’ve been given a new portfolio called Open Government, perhaps a first for any major political party as a formal portfolio. I’ve been doing a bit of research and will write a piece in the next couple of weeks about the portfolio, its importance and what it can achieve. It’s unusual to have an opposition portfolio which doesn’t match up to a Government Ministry. It should be noted that the National Government is most unlikely to actively promote open government, despite Bill English doing some good work in pushing for more open data in the public sector. Red Alert will be a vehicle for demonstrating how a Labour Government would promote Open Government.
Red Alert is no longer an experiment. It’s now part of the fabric of political discourse in this country. It may have also changed things a bit. I’d like to see Red Alert and Labour’s strong presence generally in social media become more focussed. As I see it our purpose is two-fold.
First, to continue to engage in direct conversation with New Zealanders about our thoughts and ideas. Second, for the medium to be a tool to build campaigns.
I’d like to see us concentrate more on the second. It will require more effort to work collaboratively across the political spectrum with those we can work with. It requires building more skills. And tolerance of differences.
However, there are some challenges. The biggest, as I see it, is those who would deliberately use underhand and hostile tactics to undermine attempts to demonstrate open-ness and a different way of engaging with New Zealanders. Red Alert’s tolerance will not extend to them.
Honest debate and disagreement is one thing. It’s an important part of democracy. Personal attacks, abuse and pack behaviours designed to destroy new voices and new ideas and a different way of engaging are another.
Red Alert is a vehicle for Labour’s caucus to communicate directly with New Zealanders. We know and welcome the scrutiny and sometimes criticism from the mainstream media. We also welcome the engagement with bloggers and commentators in the new media environment provided by the internet.
I believe that there should be consistency with new media in the rules and protocols applied to mainstream media. Red Alert is just one of those new mediums. We are not journalists. Nor should we ever presume to be. But we have responsibilities in how we communicate. And we can show an example.
The voices on Red Alert are of elected politicians. People who believe that the only way to make change happen is to make it happen. I believe that that if politicians are seen to do things differently, then New Zealanders can begin to have more faith in us.
It’s worth considering that around a third of eligible New Zealanders didn’t vote in the last election. For any party. That’s something we should all be grappling with.
I meant to write about this a few days ago.
US comedian Louis CK (I hadn’t heard of him, but he seems pretty popular) decided to produce a good version of his latest live show and make it available online for $5.
Nek Minnit (well 12 days later) he made $1 million.
Comedian Louis CK has proved a point: People are willing to pay a reasonable amount of money for DRM-free content from a performer they love, even though it would be trivial for them to pirate the same content for free.
Twelve days ago, Louis CK decided to skip the distribution, DRM, ads and everything else that goes into marketing and sale of a video, and simply offer the video of his latest performance on his website for $US5.
It took four days for Louis to earn $US200,000, and another 8 days to earn a whopping $US1 million.
It blows out the water the view that content has to be locked up with laws to enforce it because too many people will only steal it. In fact people will pay money to get access to new content. If the price is right and the product is what they want.
Louis CK posted a blog saying he would keep just $220,000 from his $1m.
He said:
So I’m breaking the million into four pieces.
the first 250k is going to pay back what the special cost to produce and the website to build.
The second 250k is going back to my staff and the people who work for me on the special and on my show. I’m giving them a big fat bonus.
The third 280k is going to a few different charities. They are listed below in case you’d like to donate to them also. Some of these i learned about through friends, some were recomended through twitter.
That leaves me with 220k for myself. Some of that will pay my rent and will care for my children. The rest I will do terrible, horrible things with and none of that is any of your business. In any case, to me, 220k is enough out of a million.
I had a quick look at Louis CK’s stuff. Here is is a clip on Youtube (not the $5 version). Pretty out there, but worth paying for. I think the business model is pretty obvious. It’s just a pity that he had to spend the money himself upfront to develop the tools to distribute his work.
Imagine if that technology was readily available to artists for a small fee. Imagine if the New Zealand tech industry was encouraged to go for it.
Another point to end on. Digital Rights Management (DRM) is the technology used by hardware manufacturers, publishers, copyright holders and individuals with the intent to limit the use of digital content and devices after sale.
Companies such as Amazon, AOL, Apple Inc., the BBC, Microsoft and Sony use digital rights management. In 1998 the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in the United States to impose criminal penalties on those who make available technologies whose primary purpose and function is to circumvent content protection technologies.[1] The use of digital rights management is controversial. Corporations claim that DRM is necessary to fight copyright infringement online and that it can help the copyright holder maintain artistic control[2] or ensure continued revenue streams.[3] Those opposed to DRM argue that there is no evidence that DRM helps prevent copyright infringement and that DRM helps big business stifle innovation and competition.[4] Proponents argue that digital locks should be considered necessary to prevent intellectual property from being stolen, just as physical locks are needed to prevent personal property from being stolen.
I thought it was interesting that I learnt about Louis CK’s online business endeavours through twitter via the ABC’s managing director Mark Scott who tweeted:
“The comedian (is) providing lessons in the future of digital rights management”.
Prescience from the head of Australia’s public broadcaster. It would be good to have a bit more debate about it here.
Acknowledge the previous song. Hard to beat. But Tom Petty and Stevie Nicks are a formidable duo. And it is Silent Night.
Happy Christmas everyone. Am rethinking Red Alert a bit. Will post some thoughts next week.
x
By special request and it’s worth it. Paul Kelly: How to make gravy
Hat tip: rat
This one’s a bit nicer than the last. I love the Cranberries. Like the song too.
Well it is Christmas. And as we did it last year, I thought a few songs wouldn’t go amiss.
I’ve got a few odd ones. The first is Jim Morrison’s version of Jingle Bells. I am a serious Doors fan. First time I’ve ever heard this though. Suggestions welcome.
PS: think my eyesight needs checking. It’s a copy, but does sound liike JM
Couldn’t believe it when I felt the quake in Dunedin half an hour ago. Immediately knew Christchurch would be worse affected.
It’s a 5.8 magnitude, 8 kms deep.
I’ve texted everyone I can think of in Chch. Am getting responses, but phone lines jammed. I know people are scared. All New Zealanders are with you. Kia kaha
Update: three big shakes, reportedly 5.8, 5.3 and 5.8. The third big quake has been upgraded to a 6.0. Hope thats as bad as it gets. 26,000 people in eastern suburbs without power. This will have disrupted Xmas for so many families. Will be more ongoing issues for people rebuilding their lives. New Zalanders can and should open their homes and arms to support you through these times. Our great strengths lie in our ability to deal with adversity.
Here is David Shearer’s address in reply speech. It’s pretty good I reckon. John Key’s response is pretty lame. He ’s resorted to attacking us all personally.
Doesn’t bode well for how this National Government intends to perform.
In contrast, David Shearer’s speech had gravitas.
